Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:57 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:29 pm
You are expecting an assignment whereby the left-side expression takes the value of the right-side because you are used to those higher-ordered languages in computing. The error is not to the 'classic' logic though but to your 'top-down' approach to learning.
Why is top-down learning a mistake? Isn't this how all humans learn?
First you experience water, only then do you learn that it's made of Hydrogen and Oxygen.
First we learned about atoms only later we learned about electrons and protons.
And later yet did quantum physics come to the party.
Human experience is top down, not bottom up.
Yes, at first you begin where you are to 'scientifically' determine what may be true. But then you use that to determine a logic 'bottom-up' that predicts what can come of it. You were interested in 'constructing' logic systems? We look at patterns then guess what the pattern can be in a formulated way.
But I did what the ancients did: ask what our 'origins' could be from a minimalistic origin, like Nothing or One thing, and try to find rules that 'fit' to everything. That is how logic operates. If a 'scientific' approach begins with our senses from where we are to induce what the 'laws' of nature might be, 'logic' presumes certain some prior set of laws and tests them 'forward' bottom-up.
I'm non-religious and logically Nihilistic (not morally or psychologically dreadful of the lack of concern of reality). For this to be the case should imply a universe that 'constructs' on its own bottom-up without a mind. Either simple rules or, in my take, no rules at an origin, are required and thus nature is bottom-up in essence.
That's my focus...to determine some rationale that begins from nothing at all. It requires recognizing contradiction as an active means to 'construct' reality.
Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:57 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:29 pm
The general three laws accepted are:
(1) A law that asserts consistency but often stated as about 'equality'.
A = A but you need to translate in computers as A == A
That is what I have done. Perhaps I should draw a line in the code.
At first I set the context (defining classes objects etc).
The assertions are at the bottom.
Don't do it for me. I haven't learned Python and lack sufficient confidence with the formal object languages. I'm more 'functional' and even more concerned about machine and assembly languages (architecture).
Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:57 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:29 pm
(2) A law that asserts,
A or not-A and
But if A represents an object that is a human. The logical expression not A doesn't make sense.
What exactly is the negation of a human? I can't conceive of such a thing!
Is it an ape or a planet?
Negations have different approaches in different logic systems. Our very languages have multiple kinds of negation, not just one type.
For 'classical' types, "Non-X" means "All (that is) not-X"; "not-X" may mean either "any part of non-X (but unspecified)" or just a denial of existence, such as an answer to a question, like, "Does X exist?" or "does some X exist" to which "not-X" doesn't require positing anything.
The "complement" is a negative meant to actually mean, any or all parts that are not-X, but is then more clearly written as 'non-X'. Because the simpler "not-X" often implies that you posited X, then "not-X" means anything that is not X.
So if "human" is posited, then "not-human" actually refers to "non-human", the class of everything else that isn't of the meaning 'human', such as a pencil, green eggs with ham, or any of an infinity of things.
George Boole originally defined his complements by treating the negation as an operator between two variables. Set theories usually do this too. You assign some 'universe' as "U", then, if X is "humans",
"Not-humans" means non-humans and is expressed as:
(U - X). You conflated the way we sometime use a negative description in context to imply an opposite within a smaller 'universal'.
If
U = 'all animals', then
(U - X) means a "
non-human but (still) an animal".
So define negation/complements as a binary operator instead of a unary one.
Not-X == U - X