Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:56 am
How would you formalise the following logical argument?
For all we know, the A of a B may be the state of a C inside the D of B;
We know that what a B does is determined by the state of a C inside the D of B
Therefore, for all we know, what a B does may be determined by the A of B.
Each of the letters A, B, C and D stands potentially for any conceivable thing, such as atoms, space, cows, pain, God, fairies etc.
Each of the letters A, B, C and D stands for the same thing throughout the argument.
Please note that the vocabulary, such as "what", "state", "does", "determine", is to be understood according to English dictionaries.
Articles such "a", "the", or indeed the absence of an article, are to be understood according to English grammar.
The verb "may" is to be understood according to the following definition:
May (modal verb)
You use may to indicate that there is a possibility that something is true, but you cannot be certain.
Examples: (a) According to the police, there may be other victims. (b) Some scientists believe there may be trees that are purple or yellow
This is not a thread on the validity of this argument, but your formalisation should obviously reflect whether according to you the argument is valid or not.
Here are a few of the symbols you may want to use:
¬ negation -- → implication -- ↔ equivalence -- ∧ conjunction -- ∨ disjunction -- ⊻ exclusive disjunction -- ⊢ inference -- ≡ identity -- ∈ membership -- ∉ negation of membership -- ∀ all x -- ∃ there is at least one x -- ∄ there is no x -- ∩ intersection -- ∅ empty set --
And, obviously, there may be a Nobel Prize for the correct formalisation.
EB
****Must be edited further
Actually if you want to reformalize it, the symbols will have to be reformalized as well, the only common nature we find in logic is premised but it antithetical munchausen trillema which by default necessitates all axioms as points of origin, all definition as directional and all identity as circular.
Thus intutionistic logic can be synthesized with a more aristotelian type of logic, monadic predicate calculus, where these logics are a gradation of it and exists as an approximation not complete on it's own terms.
The problem of logic/math, and all symbolism lies in a contradiction between form and function, the noun and verb fundamentally, where we are left with an alternation between the two resulting in a form of "atomism" where there are multiple types of atomic facts which necessitates a further from of atomism where one type of atom leads to another type with "type" resulting in a tautology leading to a self referencing "atomism" where the atom takes on a nature of the "whole".
Thus, through the inherent atomic nature of one atomic fact being both composed of and composing atomic facts, a "set theory" type of math/logic is integrated into this symbolism.
This dualism between active/passive is solved by a synthesis between the active/passive resulting in the "symbol" as quite literally a point of observation, both projective and circular in nature, to exist as perpetual "meaning through meaning as meaning" where all symbolism as both active and passive exist through a continual recursion with thus continual recursion as "symbolic" in nature and hence containing a simultaneous active/passive nature which is self maintained through the symbols themselves.
Thus the atomic fact exists as symmetrical to the wholism perspective and "being", which in English vocabulary can take a passive and active nature, is proof itself.
1. A,B,C,D are all axioms and as axioms are points of origin and hence unproven:
Ex: A•B•C•D•
2. All axioms are defined by there direction to other axioms, and as such exist as an axiom and point of origin:
Ex: (A• -> B• -> C• -> D•)•
(Insert various combinations)
3. All axioms that exist as a modal state effectively can cycle with axioms that do not exist in a modal state considering the modality defines the none modal and the modal exists through the non modal. For example green describes the tree, and tree describes the green, hence tree green and green tree are connected as one entity and variate in order dependent upon the language.
Ex: (A•○B•)•
Ex: ((A•○B•)• -> C• -> D•)•
(Insert various combinations)
4. Negation is a definition in an axiom and exists as both a statement of relation and gradation. For example "not blue" observes the variables of "not blue" as the answer within the given context.
Considering "blue" is is an axiom, and "not blue" is a negation of this axiom, this negation exists where the axiom exists as a point of inversion from one axiom of "blue" to the many axioms of "not blue" with even just "red", as an answer showing the divergence of blue into red by observing "not blue".
Ex: B¤
This applies to statements as well in the hegelian sense of antithetical:
Ex: (A• -> B• -> C•)¤
5. Implication, where the answer is probable, necessitates the axiom as the actual state amidst potentially other states. This actualized state is a multiplicitious form, due to is gradient nature, of a potential unity:
Ex. (•/B••)•
6. Equivalence observes each phenomena effectively as directed towards each other. Such as 4=2+2 and 2+2=4. Equivalence also shows a simulateous disconnect of the phenomena as what is equivalent is by necessitating fundamentally separate.
Ex: (A• <->•<-> B•)•
7. Conjunction, where both axioms effectively are directed towards eachother and unify into a new axiom through "and" , "both", etc.:
Example (A and B exist at both ends of angle on left side) :
((A•B•)> •)•
8. Disjustion, where both axioms effectively separate from a prior unity do to "either", "or", etc. which observes a prior state of unity amidst the axioms until some choice comes along and separate them.
Example (inversion of conjuction):
(• <(A•B•))•
9. Infer is same as imply and can be considered an inefficient use of language.
10. Identity can be observed as same as equality and can be considered an inefficient use of language.
11. Membership where one axiom exists as a particulate/part of another axiom which is more generalized, with this generality observing a potential state of unity and the axiom as a part effectively acting as an extension that exists in an actualized state can be observed as a fraction.
Ex:
(A•/B••)•
12: Negation of membership where the axiom is not longer a particulate of that general axiom:
(A•/B•¤)•
13: "All x" necessitates the axiom as both a general and particular state:
(A•/A••)•
14: There is at least one B observe x existing as a part of the general A and can observe a form of implied set. Hence A is both a general and particular. At least 1 observes the particular, as part of an implied set as both a general and particular state.
((•/••)/(B•/B••))•
15. There is no axiom still observes a deficiency of that axiom and can be observed as a negation in accords with point 4.
16. Intersection observes the axioms converge and diverge:
Ex: ((A•B•)>•<(A•B•))•
17. Empty set can be observed as no axiom or negation of that axiom.
