Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy

Newsgroups	sci.logic
Date	2023-07-21 04:09 -0700
References	<u9cd5n$2tbrr$1@dont-email.me> <13d5feea-2af4-4c26-ace0-ce7c2f6edeb2n@googlegroups.com> <u9cjod$2ui1i$1@dont-email.me> <fc7d0cfe-2334-4c93-9509-a77abff5f739n@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID	<350f54e2-c19b-485c-bfb5-e3980b929d3dn@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy
From	Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Where do you get ~Chees from? Its not in the sentence:

"The Moon is made from Green Cheese ⇒ Donald Trump is God"

The sentence is only Cheese => God.

So like Olcott, you belong to the cranks that don't understand
the analythic/synthetic distinction?

LMAO!

Dan Christensen schrieb am Freitag, 21. Juli 2023 um 04:54:31 UTC+2:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 8:33:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: 
> > On 7/20/2023 7:13 PM, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 6:41:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: 
> > >> *Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy* 
> > > 
> > > Not a fallacy. It is called the Principle of Vacuous Truth--a legitimate method of proof. It is seldom used in daily discourse since we don't usually consider that implications of something that is false. 
> > > 
> > >> "The Moon is made from Green Cheese ⇒ Donald Trump is God" 
> > >> is a true sentence is FOPL. 
> > >
> It works like this: 
> 
> Cheese means "the moon is made of green cheese" 
> God means "Trump is God" 
> 
> 1 ~Cheese 
> Premise 
> 
> 2 Cheese 
> Premise 
> 
> 3 ~God 
> Premise 
> 
> 4 ~Cheese & Cheese 
> Join, 1, 2 
> 
> 5 ~~God 
> Conclusion, 3 
> 
> 6 God 
> Rem DNeg, 5 
> 
> 7 Cheese => God 
> Conclusion, 2 
> 
> 8 ~Cheese => [Cheese => God] 
> Conclusion, 1
> > > "The Moon is made from Green Cheese => Donald Trump is NOT God" 
> > > is also a true sentence in FOPL. 
> > >
> Likewise... 
> 
> 1 ~Cheese 
> Premise 
> 
> 2 Cheese 
> Premise 
> 
> 3 God 
> Premise 
> 
> 4 ~Cheese & Cheese 
> Join, 1, 2 
> 
> 5 ~God 
> Conclusion, 3 
> 
> 6 Cheese => ~God 
> Conclusion, 2 
> 
> 7 ~Cheese => [Cheese => ~God] 
> Conclusion, 1
> > > No contradictions arise from these two implications since the antecedent in both is false. 
> > > 
> > I am trying to transform logic into correct reasoning.
> It ain't broke, don't "fix it."
> > Even most idiots know that non-sequitur is an error. 
> >
> Most idiots don't know what vacuous truth is.
> > It is clearly the case that the antecedent and consequent of material 
> > implication make sure to ignore semantic relevance and this is the 
> > direct cause of the above pair of non-sequitur conclusions.
> Antecedent and consequent need not have any other logical connections. P => Q can be defined as simply ~[P & ~Q]. 
> 
> Example: Consider the sentence, "If it is raining (R), then it is cloudy (C). (Note the use of the present tense.) 
> 
> R => C 
> 
> This does NOT mean that rain CAUSES cloudiness. It means only that, at present, it is not the case that it is both raining and not cloudy. 
> 
> R => C means ~[R & ~C] 
> 
> The truth table: 
> 
> R C R=>C 
> T T T 
> T F F 
> F T T 
> F F T 
> 
> Note that line 1 corresponds to the detachment rule. 
> Line 2 to the counter-example rule. 
> Lines 3 and 4 to the principle of vacuous truth--contrary to your claim, a legitimate method of proof.
> > > I hope this helps. 
> > > 
> > > Dan 
> > > 
> > > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com 
> > > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:40 -0500
  Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-20 17:13 -0700
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 19:33 -0500
      Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-20 19:54 -0700
        Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 22:34 -0500
          Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-20 21:53 -0700
            Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 08:47 -0500
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 07:46 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:03 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 08:38 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 11:13 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:18 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:25 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 10:07 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:42 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:49 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:59 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy (Gödel and Tarski) are abolished olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 13:37 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy (Gödel and Tarski) are abolished (typos) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:44 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 14:12 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 16:30 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:11 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:12 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 11:46 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:54 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:01 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:06 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 10:13 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:26 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:31 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:33 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:42 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 13:54 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 15:59 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:09 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 14:24 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 16:42 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 16:44 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 16:45 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 16:50 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 22:15 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 16:54 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 22:41 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-22 08:29 +0200
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-22 08:34 +0200
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 23:43 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:44 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:50 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 09:04 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 11:23 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 09:30 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 11:37 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 10:34 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 12:49 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 13:07 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 11:19 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 13:28 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 11:52 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:19 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 11:07 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 11:28 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 12:26 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 12:50 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 12:59 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-22 15:08 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 13:28 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 15:52 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 14:41 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:49 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-22 17:44 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 15:09 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:15 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 18:36 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 21:13 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 19:37 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 22:18 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 20:40 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 22:58 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 21:05 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 23:08 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 21:23 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 23:33 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 21:43 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 23:57 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 22:28 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 09:00 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 09:39 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-23 17:22 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 14:47 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 17:19 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 15:53 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 18:18 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 20:10 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 19:52 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 22:23 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 22:17 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:24 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 08:24 -0700
                True(L,x) only requires the Prolog Architecture of reaching Prolog facts through Prolog Rules olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:34 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 03:18 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 03:22 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:27 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:35 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 07:42 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 09:46 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 08:46 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:50 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 09:08 -0700
                True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 11:15 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 09:37 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 11:53 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 10:04 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:16 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:00 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:15 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:52 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:56 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 13:25 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 19:58 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 22:17 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 00:19 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 04:04 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 04:20 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 03:58 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 04:08 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 04:24 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-25 09:20 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 11:42 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 14:44 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:54 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 12:52 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:05 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 12:43 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 11:48 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 14:02 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 13:36 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 15:20 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 14:45 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 17:37 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 16:51 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 14:03 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-22 23:37 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 15:26 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 17:54 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-24 01:13 +0200
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 16:28 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 16:34 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 19:26 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 21:44 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 08:11 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-22 17:14 +0200
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:07 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:59 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 10:26 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 11:04 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:39 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:42 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 10:28 -0700
        Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 04:09 -0700
          Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 04:11 -0700
            Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 04:16 -0700
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 04:20 -0700
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:02 -0500
            Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 06:04 -0700
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 06:16 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 06:17 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 06:47 -0700
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 08:37 -0500
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 20:31 -0500
  Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:18 -0700
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:21 -0700
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 19:36 -0500
  Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-24 11:09 +0300
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:12 -0500
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 06:59 -0700
      Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 09:05 -0500
        Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 08:32 -0700
          Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:38 -0500
            Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 08:50 -0700
              True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 11:09 -0500
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-24 20:57 +0200

csiph-web