So fix the argument! Translate it into formal logic such that it doesn't result in a contradiction.
Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
That's what I started with.
Premise 1. John is human ( A ∈ C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B ∈ C )
"John is Jane" therefore does not follow.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Sure it does.
Here is the code: https://repl.it/repls/SandybrownWretchedConfiguration
As you have insisted: A ∈ C and B ∈ C
And A = B still returns "True"
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
What does this program have to do with the argument?Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:34 pmSure it does.
Here is the code: https://repl.it/repls/SandybrownWretchedConfiguration
As you have insisted: A ∈ C and B ∈ C
And A = B still returns "True"
This program only seems to show that two empty sets are the same.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
I'm not a classical logician, but here's my try...
Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
so: A is B
my fix...
P1: John is a human[man] ( A = C[1] )
P2: Jane is a human[woman] ( B = C[2] )
so: A is not B
I've solved the problem or opened myself to mockery: pick one.
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
so: A is B
my fix...
P1: John is a human[man] ( A = C[1] )
P2: Jane is a human[woman] ( B = C[2] )
so: A is not B
I've solved the problem or opened myself to mockery: pick one.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Dude. I typed in the argument EXACTLY as you defined it in formal logic.
And the conclusion (which is itself a proposition) A = B evaluates to true.
It is deductively valid.
You said you were going to fix it...
Re: I'm not a classical logician, but here's my try...
A for effort!henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:56 pm Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
so: A is B
my fix...
P1: John is a human[man] ( A = C[1] )
P2: Jane is a human[woman] ( B = C[2] )
so: A is not B
I've solved the problem or opened myself to mockery: pick one.
You are on the right track, but we are going to run into more issues as soon as I define Stephanie, D who is also a woman ( D = C[2])
And then Jane is Stephanie evaluates to true..
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
I don't know Python but I can tell that your program has nothing to do with the argument. Are you really a programmer?
You need to add two different elements to a set and then check whether those two elements are the same.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
You will forgive us if we don't trust your instincts over the combined efforts of thousands of logicians over the last 50 years.
If the interpreter doesn't throw an error - the argument is valid.
I did add two different elements. A and B that is these two lines
Let me give you a helping hand. I will assign names to the variables. And add another Jane for fun!C.append(A)
C.append(B)
https://repl.it/repls/SimpleWrathfulMice
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
I will spare you the pain and suffering.
How often have you heard people say "You are just a number."?
Sadly - it's true. If you want to retain the notion of uniqueness in formal logic - you need to assign a unique identifier to each unique element.
There is no other way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_identifier
Which means the law of identity is an error. And when you throw it out.... Classical logic falters.
How often have you heard people say "You are just a number."?
Sadly - it's true. If you want to retain the notion of uniqueness in formal logic - you need to assign a unique identifier to each unique element.
There is no other way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_identifier
Which means the law of identity is an error. And when you throw it out.... Classical logic falters.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
This program checks whether the character string 'Jane' is equal to the character string 'Jane'.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:18 pmYou will forgive us if we don't trust your instincts over the combined efforts of thousands of logicians over the last 50 years.
If the interpreter doesn't throw an error - the argument is valid.
I did add two different elements. A and B that is these two linesLet me give you a helping hand. I will assign names to the variables. And add another Jane for fun!C.append(A)
C.append(B)
https://repl.it/repls/SimpleWrathfulMice
Ffs you aren't even a programmer, you were just making up that one too.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Well what is it supposed to compare, genius?
What does A = A compare ? The law if identity, no?
I am a programmer.
I know how to fix it, but I want YOU to fix it in Classical Logic! I'll even bet you money that you can't!
I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
I may have stopped writing computer programs over a decade ago and don't remember that much, but this is just sadLogik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:29 pmWell what is it supposed to compare, genius?
What does A = A compare ? The law if identity, no?
I am a programmer.
I know how to fix it, but I want YOU to fix it in Classical Logic! I'll even bet you money that you can't!
I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"A for effort!"
No mockery? Where's my goddamned Nobel Prize!
#
"You are on the right track, but we are going to run into more issues as soon as I define Stephanie, D who is also a woman ( D = C[2]) And then Jane is Stephanie evaluates to true."
As I say, I'm no logician, but this seems to be a language problem (accurate description/placeholding), so all you got to do is keep addin' notations to individual terms...
Steph ( D = C[2]{1} )
Jane ( E = C[2]{2} )
...to get E is not D, C, B, or A, yeah?
As you go through the population you'd end up with outlandishly long, freakish 'placeholdrs' but all entities would be accurately 'filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, and numbered!' without any false equivalencies.
No mockery? Where's my goddamned Nobel Prize!
#
"You are on the right track, but we are going to run into more issues as soon as I define Stephanie, D who is also a woman ( D = C[2]) And then Jane is Stephanie evaluates to true."
As I say, I'm no logician, but this seems to be a language problem (accurate description/placeholding), so all you got to do is keep addin' notations to individual terms...
Steph ( D = C[2]{1} )
Jane ( E = C[2]{2} )
...to get E is not D, C, B, or A, yeah?
As you go through the population you'd end up with outlandishly long, freakish 'placeholdrs' but all entities would be accurately 'filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, and numbered!' without any false equivalencies.
Re:
Bingo.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:36 pm "A for effort!"
No mockery? Where's my goddamned Nobel Prize!
#
"You are on the right track, but we are going to run into more issues as soon as I define Stephanie, D who is also a woman ( D = C[2]) And then Jane is Stephanie evaluates to true."
As I say, I'm no logician, but this seems to be a language problem (accurate description/placeholding), so all you got to do is keep addin' notations to individual terms...
Steph ( D = C[2]{1} )
Jane ( E = C[2]{2} )
...to get E is not D, C, B, or A, yeah?
As you go through the population you'd end up with outlandishly long, freakish 'placeholdrs' but all entities would be accurately 'filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, and numbered!' without any false equivalencies.
Basically - you have invented ID numbers/Social security numbers.
Good to meet you Henry12341
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.