## Why still no science of logic?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Skepdick wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:14 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:07 pm Not science, and not even bad logic.

Somewhat like you, only much less incoherent.
EB
Let me give you a quick lesson on (in)coherence...
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:57 pm an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.
That expression right there. Is incoherent.
Fallacious post, as usual. Here is what I actually said:
Speakpigeon wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:56 pm The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.
So what I actually said isn't at all what you claim I said.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:14 pm All "formal models" in modern-day science are Mathematical.
This is also fallacious. I would accept that all the formal models you know are mathematical, but then you are ignorant of those which are no mathematical. Which confirms you are ignorant.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:14 pm First order formal logic is the shoulders upon which Mathematics rests.
This is also fallacious. Mathematicians outside mathematical logic use their logical sense to prove theorems, and so, no, mathematics doesn't rest on first-order logic. Mathematics rests on logic, i.e. the logic of mathematicians's logical sense.
They also don't use the material implication to prove theorems. In fact, most of them are barely able to explain the difference between material implication and logical implication. You yourself would be unable to explain the difference.
This is also fallacious because first-order logic is not logic. Mathematics rest on logic, not first-order logic.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:14 pm First order formal logic rests upon predicate logic.
And where is the proof that predicate logic is a correct model of logic?
Well, exactly nowhere, because predicate logic is, loosely, based on propositional logic and proposition logic is false logic.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:14 pm So if any "formal model" of logic is to be produced, in what formal system might it be expressed exactly?
You obviously don't know, which only confirms you know very little about logic. You probably know a LOT about predicate logic, but nothing about logic that any idiot on the street wouldn't know.
You want to give lessons, but you are ignorant.
EB
Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:21 pm I think you are going round in circles of your own design.
You are confusing a study with a methodology.
Try and draw a distinction.
Try to justify your claim that I am confusing a study with a methodology.
It seems you don't understand enough of my post to make any intelligent comment on it.
EB
Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Arising_uk wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:51 am I'd be interested if we can get a translation of that?
You can Google the author's name and find papers in English he published.
This is informative, if you like nonsense.
EB
Sculptor
Posts: 2187
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:21 pm I think you are going round in circles of your own design.
You are confusing a study with a methodology.
Try and draw a distinction.
Try to justify your claim that I am confusing a study with a methodology.
It seems you don't understand enough of my post to make any intelligent comment on it.
EB
Wow you must be so clever.

It has only taken you a mere 11 months to respond to come up with that witty rejoinder!!
Skepdick
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm So what I actually said isn't at all what you claim I said.
I didn't "claim" you said anything. I quoted you saying it. Are you having memory problems?

Click the little blue arrow at the end of "Speakpigeon wrote: ↑" <--- right here, to convince yourself that you actually said the thing you insist you didn't say.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm This is also fallacious. I would accept that all the formal models you know are mathematical, but then you are ignorant of those which are no mathematical. Which confirms you are ignorant.
And I would accept that all the FORMAL models you know are FORMAL.

That's why they are called FORMAL languages.

FORMALISM is the philosophical position equivalent to "syntax is semantics", so from the view-point of a FORMALIST there is no difference between Logic and Mathematics.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm This is also fallacious. Mathematicians outside mathematical logic use their logical sense to prove theorems, and so, no, mathematics doesn't rest on first-order logic. Mathematics rests on logic, i.e. the logic of mathematicians's logical sense.
If you can't even be bothered to read the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article you aren't just wasting your time, you are wasting mine too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
First-order logic—also known as predicate logic, quantificational logic, and first-order predicate calculus—is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables, so that rather than propositions such as "Socrates is a man", one can have expressions in the form "there exists x such that x is Socrates and x is a man", where "there exists" is a quantifier, while x is a variable. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, propositional logic is the foundation of first-order logic.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm They also don't use the material implication to prove theorems. In fact, most of them are barely able to explain the difference between material implication and logical implication. You yourself would be unable to explain the difference.
This is also fallacious because first-order logic is not logic. Mathematics rest on logic, not first-order logic.
The meaning of the symbol "⇒" is entirely grammatical/syntactic. The rules of the FORMAL language determine what "⇒" means.
The rules determine whether A ⇒ B is a permissible thing to say. Outside of the rules of the language "⇒" means nothing.

That is why Proof theory is 100% syntactic.

FORMALISMS are about FORM. It's right in the name.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm And where is the proof that predicate logic is a correct model of logic?
This sentence is incoherent. In order to arrive at a "correct model of logic", then you are necessarily appealing to Metalogic.
Logic concerns the truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are used to express truths.

The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages, formal systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of formal systems is the branch of mathematical logic that is known as model theory, and the study of deductive systems is the branch that is known as proof theory.
Proof theory is Mathematical.
Model theory is Mathematical.

Seeming as you are objecting to the use of Mathematics on your quest, what sort of proof-system or model-system do you have in mind when you demand a "provably correct model of logic"?

Any non-idiot (and you clearly don't fit in that category) knows the implications of Godel. Any system that can prove itself correct is incorrect.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm Well, exactly nowhere, because predicate logic is, loosely, based on propositional logic and proposition logic is false logic.
Which notions to "truth" and "falsity" are you appealing to here?

In the FORMAL sense truth is just "⊤" and falsity is just "⊥". Is just symbols.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm You obviously don't know, which only confirms you know very little about logic. You probably know a LOT about predicate logic, but nothing about logic that any idiot on the street wouldn't know.
You want to give lessons, but you are ignorant.
EB
Look, I know what I know. Little or a lot. I know some stuff about FORMAL languages such as Logic and Mathematics. The most powerful FORMAL languages are called Unrestricted grammars. They are equivalent to Turing machines. Computers.

And I am a computer scientist. Or something. Telling you about the science of logic. You even recognized my expertise.

Your OP asks an answered question, but you don't like the answer. I can't do much more for you.
Skepdick
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:25 pm You can Google the author's name and find papers in English he published.
This is informative, if you like nonsense.
The author is responsible for Linear logic. Linear logic is basically Quantum Physics. It's in the first paragraph of the WIkipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic

When a speaking pigeon tells me that Quantum Physics is "nonsense" this piece of wisdom comes to mind....

Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won. --Unknown
Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Sculptor wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:51 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:21 pm I think you are going round in circles of your own design.
You are confusing a study with a methodology.
Try and draw a distinction.
Try to justify your claim that I am confusing a study with a methodology.
It seems you don't understand enough of my post to make any intelligent comment on it.
EB
Wow you must be so clever.

It has only taken you a mere 11 months to respond to come up with that witty rejoinder!!
And it takes you a split second to produce fallacious comments.
You still haven't justified your assertion that I am confusing a study with a methodology.
EB
Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Skepdick wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:32 am
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm So what I actually said isn't at all what you claim I said.
I didn't "claim" you said anything. I quoted you saying it. Are you having memory problems?

Click the little blue arrow at the end of "Speakpigeon wrote: ↑" <--- right here, to convince yourself that you actually said the thing you insist you didn't say.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm This is also fallacious. I would accept that all the formal models you know are mathematical, but then you are ignorant of those which are no mathematical. Which confirms you are ignorant.
And I would accept that all the FORMAL models you know are FORMAL.

That's why they are called FORMAL languages.

FORMALISM is the philosophical position equivalent to "syntax is semantics", so from the view-point of a FORMALIST there is no difference between Logic and Mathematics.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm This is also fallacious. Mathematicians outside mathematical logic use their logical sense to prove theorems, and so, no, mathematics doesn't rest on first-order logic. Mathematics rests on logic, i.e. the logic of mathematicians's logical sense.
If you can't even be bothered to read the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article you aren't just wasting your time, you are wasting mine too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
First-order logic—also known as predicate logic, quantificational logic, and first-order predicate calculus—is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables, so that rather than propositions such as "Socrates is a man", one can have expressions in the form "there exists x such that x is Socrates and x is a man", where "there exists" is a quantifier, while x is a variable. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, propositional logic is the foundation of first-order logic.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm They also don't use the material implication to prove theorems. In fact, most of them are barely able to explain the difference between material implication and logical implication. You yourself would be unable to explain the difference.
This is also fallacious because first-order logic is not logic. Mathematics rest on logic, not first-order logic.
The meaning of the symbol "⇒" is entirely grammatical/syntactic. The rules of the FORMAL language determine what "⇒" means.
The rules determine whether A ⇒ B is a permissible thing to say. Outside of the rules of the language "⇒" means nothing.

That is why Proof theory is 100% syntactic.

FORMALISMS are about FORM. It's right in the name.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm And where is the proof that predicate logic is a correct model of logic?
This sentence is incoherent. In order to arrive at a "correct model of logic", then you are necessarily appealing to Metalogic.
Logic concerns the truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are used to express truths.

The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages, formal systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of formal systems is the branch of mathematical logic that is known as model theory, and the study of deductive systems is the branch that is known as proof theory.
Proof theory is Mathematical.
Model theory is Mathematical.

Seeming as you are objecting to the use of Mathematics on your quest, what sort of proof-system or model-system do you have in mind when you demand a "provably correct model of logic"?

Any non-idiot (and you clearly don't fit in that category) knows the implications of Godel. Any system that can prove itself correct is incorrect.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm Well, exactly nowhere, because predicate logic is, loosely, based on propositional logic and proposition logic is false logic.
Which notions to "truth" and "falsity" are you appealing to here?

In the FORMAL sense truth is just "⊤" and falsity is just "⊥". Is just symbols.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm You obviously don't know, which only confirms you know very little about logic. You probably know a LOT about predicate logic, but nothing about logic that any idiot on the street wouldn't know.
You want to give lessons, but you are ignorant.
EB
Look, I know what I know. Little or a lot. I know some stuff about FORMAL languages such as Logic and Mathematics. The most powerful FORMAL languages are called Unrestricted grammars. They are equivalent to Turing machines. Computers.

And I am a computer scientist. Or something. Telling you about the science of logic. You even recognized my expertise.

Your OP asks an answered question, but you don't like the answer. I can't do much more for you.
LOL, I'm sure you wrote that. I don't think anyone will read it.
EB
Sculptor
Posts: 2187
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Speakpigeon wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:15 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:51 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:19 pm
Try to justify your claim that I am confusing a study with a methodology.
It seems you don't understand enough of my post to make any intelligent comment on it.
EB
Wow you must be so clever.

It has only taken you a mere 11 months to respond to come up with that witty rejoinder!!
And it takes you a split second to produce fallacious comments.
You still haven't justified your assertion that I am confusing a study with a methodology.
EB
That's because you have forgotten what you are talking about and I no longer care.
Sculptor
Posts: 2187
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Speakpigeon wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:30 am
Skepdick wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:32 am
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm So what I actually said isn't at all what you claim I said.
I didn't "claim" you said anything. I quoted you saying it. Are you having memory problems?

Click the little blue arrow at the end of "Speakpigeon wrote: ↑" <--- right here, to convince yourself that you actually said the thing you insist you didn't say.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm This is also fallacious. I would accept that all the formal models you know are mathematical, but then you are ignorant of those which are no mathematical. Which confirms you are ignorant.
And I would accept that all the FORMAL models you know are FORMAL.

That's why they are called FORMAL languages.

FORMALISM is the philosophical position equivalent to "syntax is semantics", so from the view-point of a FORMALIST there is no difference between Logic and Mathematics.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm This is also fallacious. Mathematicians outside mathematical logic use their logical sense to prove theorems, and so, no, mathematics doesn't rest on first-order logic. Mathematics rests on logic, i.e. the logic of mathematicians's logical sense.
If you can't even be bothered to read the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article you aren't just wasting your time, you are wasting mine too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
First-order logic—also known as predicate logic, quantificational logic, and first-order predicate calculus—is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables, so that rather than propositions such as "Socrates is a man", one can have expressions in the form "there exists x such that x is Socrates and x is a man", where "there exists" is a quantifier, while x is a variable. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, propositional logic is the foundation of first-order logic.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm They also don't use the material implication to prove theorems. In fact, most of them are barely able to explain the difference between material implication and logical implication. You yourself would be unable to explain the difference.
This is also fallacious because first-order logic is not logic. Mathematics rest on logic, not first-order logic.
The meaning of the symbol "⇒" is entirely grammatical/syntactic. The rules of the FORMAL language determine what "⇒" means.
The rules determine whether A ⇒ B is a permissible thing to say. Outside of the rules of the language "⇒" means nothing.

That is why Proof theory is 100% syntactic.

FORMALISMS are about FORM. It's right in the name.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm And where is the proof that predicate logic is a correct model of logic?
This sentence is incoherent. In order to arrive at a "correct model of logic", then you are necessarily appealing to Metalogic.
Logic concerns the truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are used to express truths.

The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages, formal systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of formal systems is the branch of mathematical logic that is known as model theory, and the study of deductive systems is the branch that is known as proof theory.
Proof theory is Mathematical.
Model theory is Mathematical.

Seeming as you are objecting to the use of Mathematics on your quest, what sort of proof-system or model-system do you have in mind when you demand a "provably correct model of logic"?

Any non-idiot (and you clearly don't fit in that category) knows the implications of Godel. Any system that can prove itself correct is incorrect.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm Well, exactly nowhere, because predicate logic is, loosely, based on propositional logic and proposition logic is false logic.
Which notions to "truth" and "falsity" are you appealing to here?

In the FORMAL sense truth is just "⊤" and falsity is just "⊥". Is just symbols.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:14 pm You obviously don't know, which only confirms you know very little about logic. You probably know a LOT about predicate logic, but nothing about logic that any idiot on the street wouldn't know.
You want to give lessons, but you are ignorant.
EB
Look, I know what I know. Little or a lot. I know some stuff about FORMAL languages such as Logic and Mathematics. The most powerful FORMAL languages are called Unrestricted grammars. They are equivalent to Turing machines. Computers.

And I am a computer scientist. Or something. Telling you about the science of logic. You even recognized my expertise.

Your OP asks an answered question, but you don't like the answer. I can't do much more for you.
LOL, I'm sure you wrote that. I don't think anyone will read it.
EB
On this point you are completely correct.
I doubt he even read it.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Skepdick wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:35 am
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:25 pm You can Google the author's name and find papers in English he published.
This is informative, if you like nonsense.
The author is responsible for Linear logic. Linear logic is basically Quantum Physics. It's in the first paragraph of the WIkipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic

When a speaking pigeon tells me that Quantum Physics is "nonsense" this piece of wisdom comes to mind....

Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won. --Unknown
You are the one knocking common sense down, man. Your post is just a pile up of fallacies.

To begin with, I didn't say "that Quantum Physics is "nonsense"" as you clam here. Only an insane individual can make such insane posts as you do every time.

The paper I commented on is not anything near linear logic and even less quantum physics. It is essentially a divagation around the theme of logic by a guy who is head of a research department at CNRS and got a medal to show for his mathematical work, which was a long time ago.

Conclusion: you are insane.
EB
Skepdick
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Speakpigeon wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:30 am LOL, I'm sure you wrote that. I don't think anyone will read it.
You want a formal model of logic.
You don't even understand what a formalism is.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just wave the white flag. It's in your blood.
Skepdick
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Speakpigeon wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:38 am You are the one knocking common sense down, man. Your post is just a pile up of fallacies.

To begin with, I didn't say "that Quantum Physics is "nonsense"" as you clam here. Only an insane individual can make such insane posts as you do every time.

The paper I commented on is not anything near linear logic and even less quantum physics. It is essentially a divagation around the theme of logic by a guy who is head of a research department at CNRS and got a medal to show for his mathematical work, which was a long time ago.

Conclusion: you are insane.
EB
So an ad hominem is all you got?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯