Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals?

Newsgroups	sci.logic
Date	2023-05-30 17:45 -0700
References	(15 earlier) <2af7ef68-75be-4dc3-a242-1ecba7791666n@googlegroups.com> <824a2f2c-2967-4cd4-9505-96e1e9f30235n@googlegroups.com> <36b48f35-99f9-4c70-8ac3-5827afa9fb16n@googlegroups.com> <dd14b6b4-14c6-4ba0-88a6-dc277bb3559an@googlegroups.com> <a521e98c-6f4f-4748-8e27-1b76497b7aebn@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID	<e32f0c5e-2ad2-4271-af0c-d7bb8a4ebe0en@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals?
From	Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:53:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:14:26 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 9:01:43 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 12:51:51 AM UTC-4, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > Material implication is critizised for obeying two laws, 
> > > > > > > > because it is seen as (A => B) == (~A v B): 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Law of noncontradiction (LNC) 
> > > > > > > > Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p). 
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Law of excluded middle (LEM) 
> > > > > > > > precise statement of the law of excluded middle, P ∨ ~P 
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Pay attention, Mr. Collapse! Again, these laws are legitimate methods of proof that are widely accepted by the vast majority of mathematicians. It is rejected only by a fringe element, the self-styled "constructionists." If you want your work to be widely accepted, this is probably the worst possible approach. 
> > > > > > > > Banach–Tarski paradox 
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > In this case, the issue is that the entire concept of partitions 
> > > > > > > > and equivalence classes, which underlies the usual proof of 
> > > > > > > > the Banach-Tarski paradox, behaves very differently in constructive systems. 
> > > > > > [snip] 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You mean "constructive" (aka fringe) systems??? 
> > > > > Hey, you just learned there "exists" constructivism, it's not "fringe", it's a central effort 
> > > > > in _rigorous formalism for mathematics_. 
> > > > > 
> > > > [snip] 
> > > > 
> > > > A really tough sell in mainstream mathematics by the looks of it. Don't expect a breakthrough any time soon. 
> > > > 
> > > > Dan 
> > > Well, it seems that we're arguing from "opposite perspectives". 
> > > 
> > > So, what we're arguing out is actually among points of contention in the field, 
> > > and includes what has a name called the "qualification problem". 
> > > 
> > > So, leafing through Russell and Norvig's book "Artificial Intelligence", there's 
> > > Chapter 7 is called "Logic Agents". 
> > > 
> > > So, there's a notion of entailment and about the "worlds", and, the notion of "implication" 
> > > isn't connected to "causal implication" a.k.a. "direct implication", because it has a sort 
> > > of "little model of entailment", and, not having a universal model of the objects and rules. 
> > > 
> > > Then the idea is that the overall entailment is transitive and makes up for sets of events 
> > > that are the "models", and I'll argue that they don't really reflect "model theory" because 
> > > there are unmodeled "rules" in what they "entail", the idea is that entailment then makes 
> > > it so a naive algorithm can accomplish various "derivations", with very simple rules, 
> > > in the context of the "search" of the digital development in their "goal-seeking", 
> > > and about what's "complete". 
> > > 
> > > So, one might start with calling "material", "implication", instead, "material entailment". 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Then, of course there's a totally different approach, or a sort of opposite, where 
> > > "implication" actually means "causal" and "direct" implication, and the contents of 
> > > the truth tables more reflect values of attributes, than the carriage of entailment, 
> > > then that changes in the conditions, can be applied to the entire truth-table. 
> > > 
> > > So, there's a sort of disambiguation of what are "entailment tables" and "implication tables", 
> > > that "implication tables" have a more complete algebra about the negation and the modal 
> > > and so on, in terms of the piece-wise rows of the entailment tables, the column-wise 
> > > relations of the implication tables (the truth tables, "the tableau"). 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So, that said, what there is is a lot of ambiguity because this sort of style of entailment 
> > > is squatting on the domain of the definition of the good old classical propositional logic. 
> > > 
> > > Clearly, what results is a deconstructive account that results a disambiguation of the terms 
> > > and their application: in this manner making it better an approach to the "qualification problem", 
> > > and making less primary the approach of "large, fast, and dumb". 
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualification_problem 
> > > 
> > > Also, this sort of "squat ambiguity" is carried out from "monotonicity", there are basically 
> > > _conflicting definitions_ that need to get sorted out and built into a better thing. 
> > > 
> > > Now, one way to approach this is to consider Lukasiewicz and the "multivalent", but really 
> > > instead of just introducing U for Uncertain after T for True and F for false, to introduce 
> > > constants of the NULL and UNIVERSAL. The idea then is to write implications so that 
> > > there are constants that 
> > > 
> > > False -> Null 
> > > True -> Universal 
> > > Null -> False 
> > > Universal -> True 
> > > 
> > > though, there are various considerations why there's only one of those constants or otherwise 
> > > what results for the "arithmetization" the properties of the "arithmetic identities and annihilators", 
> > > what values to assign those things, for example like 
> > > 
> > > False -1 
> > > Null/Universal 0 
> > > True 1 
> > > 
> > > that then, this entire situation can be improved, and, it can be pointed exactly what's wrong in 
> > > the _definitions_ and their _derivations_ from the _assumptions_ of the _models_. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So, most certainly, there is an entire school of "classical propositional logic" that 
> > > basically excludes the entire "model of worlds, OK it's just samples of events",m 
> > > approach, that peope like De Morgan and so on would find much more familiar, 
> > > when they find that usual of their derivation rules are not possible in such a system. 
> > > 
> > > Anyways with this sort of disambiguation of vagaries of definition, 
> > > and basically separating the approach of "opportunistic goal-seeking" 
> > > from "tractable oversall verification", I will carry on like so thus that 
> > > both are put side-by-side, and their differences sorted, then to remove 
> > > what are the "squat ambiguities" thus that each has a proper, qualified, 
> > > language. 
> > > 
> > > Then, again, the classical logic is much more about the 
> > > _causal_ and the _implicatory_ not the simplest algorithms 
> > > of a model based on "my block of data: the world", and, 
> > > the "truth tables" of "entailment tables" and "implication tables" 
> > > are , ..., different relations of binary and placeholder VALUES. 
> > Yes, this sort of critical analysis of the approaches is a lot better than that 
> > otherwise, without disambiguating all the assumptions that go into the 
> > definitions of "derive" that there would simply otherwise only be conflict. 
> > 
> > So, the "qualification problem" and "ramification problem" are parts of it, 
> > but it also reflects that models of inclusion have corresponding duals as 
> > models of exclusion. (...That are not "complete" with respect to each other, 
> > but each is structural.) 
> > 
> > For example, if you consider usual goal-finding and "greedy" algorithms, 
> > vis-a-vis "easy" and "hard" problems, sometimes it's better to find what 
> > combinations definitely force the system open, instead of what particulars 
> > or Horn clauses or simple algorithms reduce it more closed, that what would 
> > be pathological can be removed under combinations, or for an underlying graph 
> > theory, and its interpretation, separating models and establishing where 
> > they're incomplete and where they're incomplete. It's a fuller analysis. 
> > 
> > 
> > So, there are some total vagaries in definition, that need to get dis-ambiguated, 
> > making for a deconstructive account of a reconstructive analysis that makes 
> > for both a "universal theory" and "a world where implication is causal", 
> > combining the "rules" and the "values", contra a loose collection in sampling/event theory, 
> > where basically "monotonicity" is used in two incompatible ways, in terms of 
> > adding "samples" or adding "inferences". 
> > 
> > This way it can be clear that "the logic" sorts out these kinds of "mutual dumbs", 
> > then also to establish what are their compatible modes, models, thus that it 
> > can result what are their relative strengths and weaknesses, besides the usual 
> > sort of "algorithmics" that "greedy goal-finding search" has in its context, 
> > that aren't overall relevant to "classical propositional logic" and its soundness, 
> > validity, and so on. 
> > 
> > Yes, it would make a lot less "mutual dumb" to sort out these "vagaries of definition" 
> > and what are "squat ambiguities" and dis-ambiguate them and so on. 
> > 
> > Anyways nobody needs "material implication" to do logic, but, 
> > "causality" and "direct implication" are always unbreakable rules. 
> > (In the logic, ..., what with regards to "logical paradoxes" are to be 
> > resolved through quantifier disambiguation and modal quantifiers 
> > and what makes for reconciling numbering and counting and so on, 
> > about a logical foundation that's correct and dis-ambiguates the 
> > definitions in the "entailment", "implication", "models", "rules", 
> > "monotonicity", of the "inference".)
> So, your wonderings about "is there something wrong with material implication?" can be deliberated 
> in an expansive sense by understanding that "the logics" you've been copying have a "the baggage" 
> that is about the algorithmics, the rules, whether there are multiple observers or parallel change, 
> and then other things that get into what are suitable systems for the evaluation of inference, 
> in what are "time-forward" systems and with monotonicity and modality. 
> 
> I.e., the usual "monotonicity" you get is really "adding extra" not "making changes", 
> that there are for the derivations of classical propositional logic, making sure that 
> what results for values used for their derivations, that _all_ the classical derivations 
> follow, not excluding those (few..., but, some) that "material entailment" does not support. 
> 
> So, this way, is for making it so to show _why_ there is that the "working data structures" of 
> various "simple, quite linear, means of computing inferences or rather the predicate test()", 
> are _not_ so necessarily fundamental as opportunistic, and, there are both higher level concerns, 
> and lower level concerns, which results why there's for making "normal truth tables", 
> for the monotonic and the modal, and "time-forward", and also "retro-active", but 
> that as exceptional and for again the "time-forward", or "self-healing", that the "truth tables" 
> are populated with values what make for that changes in inferences or rules, can get applied 
> in-place, for example, to the "truth-tables", vis-a-vis the time and space terms, of their algorithms. 
> 
> 
> So, "the baggage", here as expressed in part by the "qualification problem" and "ramification problem", 
> is largely the ramification problem, and is to reflect that "the baggage" of, "the logics", should 
> reflect fundamentally the scientific necessities, or, the overall closed algebraically, and the finite, 
> or, expert systems and what are cataloged axiomatics, in, a system overall where there's only 
> one world and only one model. 
> 
> I.e., this can help explain why there's a difference between "various ad hoc and working theories", 
> and, "FOUNDATIONS", and help explain why some researchers in FOUNDATIONS, _reject_ 
> "material implication" as, ..., "wrong", as well do various constructivists, as well do various 
> of those who associate implication only with causality (either shared or coincident). 
> 
> This makes it so that "all the classical derivation rules are _entailed_", which you'll notice 
> that some with "the baggage" or "entailment, modern baggage: defined that vacuity brings 
> in false as any antecedent and true as any consequent of a _material implication_", as, an 
> un-used data structure that's _missing_ some of the derivation rules of the classical 
> propositional calculus. 
> 
> Such "modern baggage" is _not_ considered classical, nor is it classically complete. 
> 
> (Or, "facile est descensis averno".)


You might improve from reading Pascal's "Thoughts on Mind and Style".

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

Thread

Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-27 12:04 -0700
  Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 13:25 -0700
    Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-27 19:42 -0700
  Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 08:39 -0700
    Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 11:50 -0700
    Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 12:01 -0700
      Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 13:47 -0700
        Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 13:57 -0700
          Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 14:02 -0700
          Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 16:12 -0500
          Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 15:39 -0700
            Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 15:56 -0700
              Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 16:04 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 16:14 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 16:24 -0700
              Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 16:49 -0700
              Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 16:52 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-05-29 02:25 +0200
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-05-29 02:31 +0200
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-05-29 02:45 +0200
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 17:59 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 17:46 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 17:51 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 18:01 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 18:07 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 18:12 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 18:15 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 18:17 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 18:23 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 18:28 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 18:46 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 21:51 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 22:14 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 22:33 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 22:36 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 09:01 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 09:27 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 09:32 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 09:35 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 10:03 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-05-29 19:45 +0200
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-30 05:52 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-30 15:16 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 11:14 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 22:53 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-30 17:45 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 08:23 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 13:22 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 13:31 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 13:38 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 13:51 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 19:56 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 21:35 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 21:44 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-01 18:54 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 19:55 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-01 21:13 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 21:19 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 21:23 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-01 21:30 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 22:02 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 22:28 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 22:31 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 22:34 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 22:39 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-01 23:29 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 14:14 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 14:23 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-01 23:26 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 09:42 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 20:41 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 20:58 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-01 21:24 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 21:28 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 21:31 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 21:34 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-01 22:49 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 04:49 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 04:51 -0700
        Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 15:33 -0700
    Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 02:52 -0700
      Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 02:58 -0700
        Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 03:03 -0700
          Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 07:35 -0700
            Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 08:23 -0700
              Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 08:30 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 08:33 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 09:56 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-05-29 19:56 +0200
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 11:40 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 11:43 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 13:32 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 13:38 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 13:59 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 15:19 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 15:21 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 17:37 -0700
                Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 19:00 -0700
  Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-06-02 09:41 +0200
    Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 09:42 -0700
      Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 11:00 -0700
        Re: Erroneous conclusions from applying material conditionals? Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 11:14 -0700

csiph-web