You probably weren't very good at it if you self-identify as a Classical Logician/Aristotelian.
Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"you need to assign a unique identifier to each unique element."
*I am right!
Again: where's my goddamned Nobel Prize!
#
"Good to meet you Henry12341"
'I am not a number! I am a free man!'
*actually, I don't know that I am...again: it's just seems to be a language/placeholder problem...right or not (in a logician's way) if I were lookin' to avoid false equivalencies I go for outlandish, freakishly long 'indentfiers'.
Again: where's my goddamned Nobel Prize!
#
"Good to meet you Henry12341"
'I am not a number! I am a free man!'
*actually, I don't know that I am...again: it's just seems to be a language/placeholder problem...right or not (in a logician's way) if I were lookin' to avoid false equivalencies I go for outlandish, freakishly long 'indentfiers'.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
So what's this great relevation that you had?
Are you confused by the fact that there are two character strings, made of different particles located elsewhere in spacetime, and yet we get a "true" value?
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Sure. What's your point?
My point is that the law of identity is an error. And without it Classical Logic is dead too.
If 1 = 1 is true. Then Jane = Jane is true. Different Jane but hey...
Your brain will probably just context-switch here so it can protect your religion.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"If 1 = 1 is true. Then Jane = Jane is true. Different Jane but hey..."
And there's the problem: Jane to the left of me has a face like a foot, and Jane to the right of me can melt your heart with a glance. The placeholders are off-kilter 'logically' (but just fine in the 'real world' cuz I can see clearly the two Janes ain't the same).
So, mebbe Logik's point is 'pull your head from your keister and look around'.
If so: that ain't half-bad advice.
And there's the problem: Jane to the left of me has a face like a foot, and Jane to the right of me can melt your heart with a glance. The placeholders are off-kilter 'logically' (but just fine in the 'real world' cuz I can see clearly the two Janes ain't the same).
So, mebbe Logik's point is 'pull your head from your keister and look around'.
If so: that ain't half-bad advice.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
LOLLogik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:47 pm Sure. What's your point?
My point is that the law of identity is an error. And without it Classical Logic is dead too.
If 1 = 1 is true. Then Jane = Jane is true. Different Jane but hey...
Your brain will probably just context-switch here so it can protect your religion.
The computer compares the two strings. A true value doesn't mean that they are literally one and the same, it only says that their makeup is identical.
Kinda like how two protons have different locations in spacetime, yet their makeup is identical. Your computer program is merely a bigger more complicated version of this.
Of course the above does not violate the law of identity, only someone who is clueless about computers, would think that.
When will you realize that you are the fool here with an information religion
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
No shit, Sherlock.
Logic doesn't deal with literals. All logic deals with symbolic representations. Abstraction.
Hear yourself speak! TWO protons. TWO locations.
TWO Janes. TWO locations.
The TWO protons have identical charges.
Like the TWO Janes may have identical eye color.
Sounds like cognitive dissonance is taking hold. Quick! Context-switch!
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
"John is human" isn't normally interpreted as John = human, as I guess is suggested by "( A = C )".
In Aristotelian terms, the argument should read:
And then, it's not valid as there is an undistributed middle.Premise 1. John is human;
Premise 2. Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.
Now, if we interpret the argument as follows:
Provided you define "=" properly, then, sure, it's valid.Premise 1. John = human;
Premise 2. Jane = human;
Therefore, John = Jane.
Different arguments, though.
What's the problem already?
EB
Last edited by Speakpigeon on Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Why is it a problem?Logik wrote:That's the problem. You can't. ...
Depends how you wish to interpret proper names I guess. If you want to make them predicates and want 'Jane is John' as a fact then you'd add;"John is human" and "John is Jane" are both grammatically correct even though unsound.
But if you are translating John is human to human(John), why aren't you translating "John is Jane" as Jane(John).
John(Jane) <-> Jane(John).
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
The problem is that you accept John is human (A = C => True) and Jane is human (B = C => True). Then you also have to accept the PROPOSITION (NOT conclusion)Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:31 pm"John is human" isn't normally interpreted as John = human, as I guess is suggested by "( A = C )".
In Aristotelian terms, the argument should read:And then, it's not valid as there is an undistributed middle.Premise 1. John is human;
Premise 2. Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.
Now, if we interpret the argument as follows:Provided you define "=" properly, then, sure, it's valid.Premise 1. John = human;
Premise 2. Jane = human;
Therefore, John = Jane.
Different arguments, though.
What's the problem already?
EB
A = B => True.
John is Jane.
Transitivity.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
That's because elementary particles are all alike, not because the law of identity is broken.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:29 pmNo shit, Sherlock.
Logic doesn't deal with literals. All logic deals with symbolic representations. Abstraction.
Hear yourself speak! TWO protons. TWO locations.
TWO Janes. TWO locations.
The TWO protons have identical charges.
Like the TWO Janes may have identical eye color.
Sounds like cognitive dissonance is taking hold. Quick! Context-switch!
Idiot much?
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
So tell me where is the law of identity broken then?
You do realize that computers are built from particles, not abstractions, yes?
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
It lacks the semantics to express a unique identifier.
Jane = Jane => True
Different Jane.
Forget the computers.
Adhere to the grammar/syntax/semantics of your logic consistently!
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Again: where is the law of identity broken?Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:41 pmIt lacks the semantics to express a unique identifier.
Jane = Jane => True
Different Jane.
Forget the computers.
Adhere to the grammar/syntax/semantics of your logic.
What computers do is wrap you over the knuckless when you break the rules of the language.
You are used to getting away with errors.
A computer is comparing two 'Jane' character strings, and finds that they are alike similarly to how to protons are alike, and gives a true answer.
So?