attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:12 pm
So do we agree that logic at its fundamental root
It depends on how you conceptualise logic. If you are telling me that any inference from A -> B is logic, e.g f(A) = B then sure.
It's true, because f(), A and B could mean anything. It could even mean f(f) = f which would be equivalent of the English sentence I am I.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:12 pm
- although can be programmatically altered, defies the agreed logic that logicians AND mathematicians AND computer programmers etc..have deemed acceptable to human logic? - ..that once altered, the BINARY outcome is altered.
There's a ton of pre-suppositions in your questions. The outcome needs not be binary. It's only binary in Boolean logic. It's not Binary in non-Boolean logics.
In as much as anybody has agreed to anything: Classical logicians have agreed with classical logicians, but intuitionistic logicians disagree with classical logicians.
Classical mathematicians disagree with constructive mathemaitcians (particularly about proofs by contradiction).
Programmers disagree with programmers about syntax AND semantics, but they do agree on one thing on which Logicians and Mathematicians disagree with. Programmers want side-effects (non-determinism), logicians and mathematicians don't (determinism) !
So, in a way - certainly. When you change something in the system something elsewhere is definitely altered. That's a feature not a bug.
In general what most logicians, mathematicians etc have in common is that they accept the "law" of non-contradiction. Which is usually known as the "no-self-defeating objects" argument (
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/11/ ... -argument/ ). e.g Any system that can express a contradiction "defeats it self".
Sooo, uuuh. To that argument I say. I don't exist. And - I did not defeat myself in saying this.