Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #50393 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-13 12:20 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-05-13 20:31 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:20 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 13:47 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 13:10 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 15:13 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:43 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 16:43 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:56 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:30 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:53 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:14 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:23 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:14 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:20 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:15 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 14:44 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 12:28 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 13:50 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 13:00 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:11 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 13:20 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:51 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 14:02 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:08 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:56 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 16:03 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:14 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:39 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:56 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:19 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 20:15 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:58 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 20:16 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:04 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:08 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:19 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:23 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:32 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:57 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:10 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 14:16 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:17 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 14:22 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:47 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 15:21 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:29 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 15:35 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:59 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:01 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 16:16 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:23 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 16:37 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:44 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 21:46 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:05 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:47 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 00:01 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:05 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:22 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:35 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:27 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 23:01 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 09:42 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 09:42 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 10:59 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 10:32 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 12:42 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 12:25 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 16:18 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 16:02 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 17:15 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 16:48 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 18:50 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 18:21 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 19:52 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 23:07 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-15 07:16 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-17 22:11 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 07:28 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 10:01 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 19:57 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 00:48 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:30 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 22:34 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 20:58 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 23:15 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 09:47 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 09:07 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 09:00 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 10:31 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 09:53 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 11:33 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 11:52 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 17:28 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 16:53 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 18:56 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 18:33 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 19:53 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-15 00:20 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 18:25 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-15 13:18 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-17 22:02 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 08:27 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 10:37 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 19:09 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 18:35 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 20:02 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-18 16:20 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 10:25 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 19:11 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 18:38 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 20:06 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-19 02:01 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:31 -0400
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 14:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <P4-dneMNhqhfK-P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50415 |
On 5/13/2022 2:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2022-05-13 13:11, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 2:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 1:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2022-05-13 11:20, olcott wrote: >>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>>>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the >>>>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive >>>>>> argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>> >>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is >>>>>> valid and even though premises and conclusion are semantically >>>>>> unrelated. >>>>> >>>>> That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually >>>>> means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. >>>>> >>>>> [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a conditional >>>>> statement. It has no conclusion]. >>>>> >>>> >>>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese. >>>> (b) Water is a kind of concrete. >>>> (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. >>>> >>>> Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is not >>>> a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, thus >>>> meets the above validity criteria. >>> >>> No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. >>> >>> Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of >>> green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth *assignment* >>> under which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. The >>> actual truth values of these expressions don't play a role in the >>> definition of validity. >>> >> >> I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level >> abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. > > Abstractions are designed to cover a large number of different cases. A > concrete example cannot capture an abstraction. > >> Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: >> >> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of its >> premises. >> >> Into a concrete example of the issue that it corrects, quite yet. > > Are you acknowledging that you haven't the foggiest idea what 'valid' > means? If you're trying to say more than this, I fail to see what it > might be. > I am saying that I am redefining the concept of logical validity to eliminate its divergence from correct reasoning. A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of its premises. This requires semantic relevance between the all the premises and the conclusion to be maintained. >>>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue* >>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>>>>> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of >>>>>> its premises. >>>>> >>>>> And that differs from the standard definition how exactly? Unless >>>>> you have some special personal meaning for 'necessary consequence' >>>>> it would >>>> >>>> Semantic relevance is a key aspect of 'necessary consequence'. >>> >>> Defined how exactly? >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Here is the original way that semantic relevance was defined: >> Semantically unrelated premises and conclusion is not possible with >> syllogisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >> >> Because syllogisms are comprised of >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition > > How exactly do two wikipedia articles provide a definition of 'semantic > relevance' when neither article contains the word 'semantic' nor the > word 'relevance'? > > André > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic Also it can be easily seen that Categorical_propositions cannot possibly diverge from semantic relevance. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 14:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <t5mdgh$qih$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50424 |
On 2022-05-13 13:51, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 2:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2022-05-13 13:11, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 2:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2022 1:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2022-05-13 11:20, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes >>>>>>> a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and >>>>>>> the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive >>>>>>> argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is >>>>>>> valid and even though premises and conclusion are semantically >>>>>>> unrelated. >>>>>> >>>>>> That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually >>>>>> means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a >>>>>> conditional statement. It has no conclusion]. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese. >>>>> (b) Water is a kind of concrete. >>>>> (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. >>>>> >>>>> Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is >>>>> not a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, >>>>> thus meets the above validity criteria. >>>> >>>> No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. >>>> >>>> Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of >>>> green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth *assignment* >>>> under which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. The >>>> actual truth values of these expressions don't play a role in the >>>> definition of validity. >>>> >>> >>> I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level >>> abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. >> >> Abstractions are designed to cover a large number of different cases. >> A concrete example cannot capture an abstraction. >> >>> Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: >>> >>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of >>> its premises. >>> >>> Into a concrete example of the issue that it corrects, quite yet. >> >> Are you acknowledging that you haven't the foggiest idea what 'valid' >> means? If you're trying to say more than this, I fail to see what it >> might be. >> > > I am saying that I am redefining the concept of logical validity to > eliminate its divergence from correct reasoning. Except you haven't show any instances where it diverges from 'correct reasoning'. You gave an example argument which was *not* valid, claimed that it was valid and that this "fact" was somehow a problem. The only problem I can see is your failure to grasp what it means for something to be valid. If you can't even figure out whether an argument is valid or not, you're not in any position to claim there is something wrong with the accepted concept of validity. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 15:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NJWdnT2VkZ0kJ-P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50427 |
On 5/13/2022 3:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2022-05-13 13:51, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 2:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2022-05-13 13:11, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 2:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 1:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2022-05-13 11:20, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes >>>>>>>> a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and >>>>>>>> the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive >>>>>>>> argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is >>>>>>>> valid and even though premises and conclusion are semantically >>>>>>>> unrelated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually >>>>>>> means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a >>>>>>> conditional statement. It has no conclusion]. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>> (b) Water is a kind of concrete. >>>>>> (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is >>>>>> not a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, >>>>>> thus meets the above validity criteria. >>>>> >>>>> No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. >>>>> >>>>> Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of >>>>> green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth >>>>> *assignment* under which the premises are true and the conclusion >>>>> is false. The actual truth values of these expressions don't play a >>>>> role in the definition of validity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level >>>> abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. >>> >>> Abstractions are designed to cover a large number of different cases. >>> A concrete example cannot capture an abstraction. >>> >>>> Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: >>>> >>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>>> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of >>>> its premises. >>>> >>>> Into a concrete example of the issue that it corrects, quite yet. >>> >>> Are you acknowledging that you haven't the foggiest idea what 'valid' >>> means? If you're trying to say more than this, I fail to see what it >>> might be. >>> >> >> I am saying that I am redefining the concept of logical validity to >> eliminate its divergence from correct reasoning. > > Except you haven't show any instances where it diverges from 'correct > reasoning'. True and unprovable become impossible because Provable() is an aspect of True(). > You gave an example argument which was *not* valid, claimed > that it was valid and that this "fact" was somehow a problem. The only > problem I can see is your failure to grasp what it means for something > to be valid. > > If you can't even figure out whether an argument is valid or not, you're > not in any position to claim there is something wrong with the accepted > concept of validity. > > André > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 17:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <WtAfK.779$JXmb.724@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #50430 |
On 5/13/22 4:08 PM, olcott wrote: > True and unprovable become impossible because Provable() is an aspect of > True(). > Can you actually PROVE that statement, if not, by its own defintion, it isn't True. If you resort to making it an axiom, then you run into the issue that the accepted axioms define the system, and don't apply to systems that don't take those axioms. You also need to be sure that you don't make your system inconsistent, and there exists proofs that show that such an axiom lead to inconsistent systems once they try to take on certail levels of complexity. In particular, no logic system can express all the properties of the integer number system and be consistent (no provable statement can be refuted) and complete (all truths are provable) at the same time. Basically, you are defining youself into a corner and restricting what you can meaningfully logically deduce.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <IQyfK.3613$cQO2.1167@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #50408 |
On 5/13/22 3:11 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 2:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 1:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2022-05-13 11:20, olcott wrote: >>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the >>>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive >>>>> argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>> >>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is valid >>>>> and even though premises and conclusion are semantically unrelated. >>>> >>>> That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually >>>> means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. >>>> >>>> [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a conditional >>>> statement. It has no conclusion]. >>>> >>> >>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese. >>> (b) Water is a kind of concrete. >>> (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. >>> >>> Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is not >>> a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, thus >>> meets the above validity criteria. >> >> No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. >> >> Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of >> green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth *assignment* >> under which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. The >> actual truth values of these expressions don't play a role in the >> definition of validity. >> > > I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level > abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. > > Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: > > A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form > such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of its premises. > > Into a concrete example of the issue that it corrects, quite yet. > >>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue* >>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>>>> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of >>>>> its premises. >>>> >>>> And that differs from the standard definition how exactly? Unless >>>> you have some special personal meaning for 'necessary consequence' >>>> it would >>> >>> Semantic relevance is a key aspect of 'necessary consequence'. >> >> Defined how exactly? >> >> André >> > > Here is the original way that semantic relevance was defined: > Semantically unrelated premises and conclusion is not possible with > syllogisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure > > Because syllogisms are comprised of > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition > > > > My first thought is that if you are going to be limiting your reasoning capability to simple things. You seem to be stuck in using simple logic methods, which will limit what you can actually prove. What you don't seem to understand is that much of what we have logically proven, is based on higher order logical systems, which these simple forms just can't handle. In particular, Computation theory, like much of mathematics, needs second order (or higher) logic forms, which the simple logic just can't handle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 15:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <FdidnV0ELsSsIeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50428 |
On 5/13/2022 3:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 3:11 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 2:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 1:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2022-05-13 11:20, olcott wrote: >>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>>>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the >>>>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive >>>>>> argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>> >>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is >>>>>> valid and even though premises and conclusion are semantically >>>>>> unrelated. >>>>> >>>>> That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually >>>>> means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. >>>>> >>>>> [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a conditional >>>>> statement. It has no conclusion]. >>>>> >>>> >>>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese. >>>> (b) Water is a kind of concrete. >>>> (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. >>>> >>>> Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is not >>>> a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, thus >>>> meets the above validity criteria. >>> >>> No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. >>> >>> Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of >>> green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth *assignment* >>> under which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. The >>> actual truth values of these expressions don't play a role in the >>> definition of validity. >>> >> >> I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level >> abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. >> >> Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: >> >> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of its >> premises. >> >> Into a concrete example of the issue that it corrects, quite yet. >> >>>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue* >>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>>>>> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of >>>>>> its premises. >>>>> >>>>> And that differs from the standard definition how exactly? Unless >>>>> you have some special personal meaning for 'necessary consequence' >>>>> it would >>>> >>>> Semantic relevance is a key aspect of 'necessary consequence'. >>> >>> Defined how exactly? >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Here is the original way that semantic relevance was defined: >> Semantically unrelated premises and conclusion is not possible with >> syllogisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >> >> Because syllogisms are comprised of >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition >> >> >> >> > > My first thought is that if you are going to be limiting your reasoning > capability to simple things. You seem to be stuck in using simple logic > methods, which will limit what you can actually prove. > Not when all of natural language semantics has been fully formalized and directly integrated into its own formal system. > What you don't seem to understand is that much of what we have logically > proven, is based on higher order logical systems, which these simple > forms just can't handle. > > In particular, Computation theory, like much of mathematics, needs > second order (or higher) logic forms, which the simple logic just can't > handle. I created Minimal Type Theory to express HOL using very slightly adapted syntax of FOL. In an early version of MTT it translated its expressions into directed graphs so that pathological self-reference could be seen as infinite cycle in the di-graph. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 17:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <seAfK.3715$R6W6.577@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #50433 |
On 5/13/22 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 3:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 3:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 2:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2022 1:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2022-05-13 11:20, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes >>>>>>> a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and >>>>>>> the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive >>>>>>> argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is >>>>>>> valid and even though premises and conclusion are semantically >>>>>>> unrelated. >>>>>> >>>>>> That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually >>>>>> means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a >>>>>> conditional statement. It has no conclusion]. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese. >>>>> (b) Water is a kind of concrete. >>>>> (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. >>>>> >>>>> Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is >>>>> not a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, >>>>> thus meets the above validity criteria. >>>> >>>> No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. >>>> >>>> Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of >>>> green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth *assignment* >>>> under which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. The >>>> actual truth values of these expressions don't play a role in the >>>> definition of validity. >>>> >>> >>> I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level >>> abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. >>> >>> Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: >>> >>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of >>> its premises. >>> >>> Into a concrete example of the issue that it corrects, quite yet. >>> >>>>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue* >>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes >>>>>>> a form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all >>>>>>> of its premises. >>>>>> >>>>>> And that differs from the standard definition how exactly? Unless >>>>>> you have some special personal meaning for 'necessary consequence' >>>>>> it would >>>>> >>>>> Semantic relevance is a key aspect of 'necessary consequence'. >>>> >>>> Defined how exactly? >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> Here is the original way that semantic relevance was defined: >>> Semantically unrelated premises and conclusion is not possible with >>> syllogisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >>> >>> Because syllogisms are comprised of >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> My first thought is that if you are going to be limiting your >> reasoning capability to simple things. You seem to be stuck in using >> simple logic methods, which will limit what you can actually prove. >> > > Not when all of natural language semantics has been fully formalized and > directly integrated into its own formal system. Nope doesn't work. Remember, formal system are based on a finite, or perhaps extended to countable, number of base axiom. I think you basis is going to hit the problem that the number of natural language 'facts' you are entering into your system isn't so limited. Having an uncountable number of axioms in your system breaks a lot of thngs. In fact, I think it breaks the definition of 'provable' or 'refutable'. > >> What you don't seem to understand is that much of what we have >> logically proven, is based on higher order logical systems, which >> these simple forms just can't handle. >> >> In particular, Computation theory, like much of mathematics, needs >> second order (or higher) logic forms, which the simple logic just >> can't handle. > > I created Minimal Type Theory to express HOL using very slightly adapted > syntax of FOL. In an early version of MTT it translated its expressions > into directed graphs so that pathological self-reference could be seen > as infinite cycle in the di-graph. > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF > Again, the error you are going to run into is your system is now based on an uncountable number of inital truths, so a lot of the rules for reasoning break down. This makes you system VERY prone to becoming inconsistent (if not a certainty). There are problems when you allow uncountable infinites into your base logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mKudnVSIM_SWSeP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50463 |
On 5/13/2022 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 3:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/13/22 3:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 2:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 1:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2022-05-13 11:20, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes >>>>>>>> a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and >>>>>>>> the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive >>>>>>>> argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is >>>>>>>> valid and even though premises and conclusion are semantically >>>>>>>> unrelated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually >>>>>>> means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a >>>>>>> conditional statement. It has no conclusion]. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>> (b) Water is a kind of concrete. >>>>>> (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is >>>>>> not a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, >>>>>> thus meets the above validity criteria. >>>>> >>>>> No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. >>>>> >>>>> Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of >>>>> green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth >>>>> *assignment* under which the premises are true and the conclusion >>>>> is false. The actual truth values of these expressions don't play a >>>>> role in the definition of validity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level >>>> abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. >>>> >>>> Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: >>>> >>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>>> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of >>>> its premises. >>>> >>>> Into a concrete example of the issue that it corrects, quite yet. >>>> >>>>>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue* >>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes >>>>>>>> a form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of >>>>>>>> all of its premises. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And that differs from the standard definition how exactly? Unless >>>>>>> you have some special personal meaning for 'necessary >>>>>>> consequence' it would >>>>>> >>>>>> Semantic relevance is a key aspect of 'necessary consequence'. >>>>> >>>>> Defined how exactly? >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> Here is the original way that semantic relevance was defined: >>>> Semantically unrelated premises and conclusion is not possible with >>>> syllogisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >>>> >>>> Because syllogisms are comprised of >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> My first thought is that if you are going to be limiting your >>> reasoning capability to simple things. You seem to be stuck in using >>> simple logic methods, which will limit what you can actually prove. >>> >> >> Not when all of natural language semantics has been fully formalized >> and directly integrated into its own formal system. > > Nope doesn't work. Remember, formal system are based on a finite, or > perhaps extended to countable, number of base axiom. > > I think you basis is going to hit the problem that the number of natural > language 'facts' you are entering into your system isn't so limited. > > Having an uncountable number of axioms in your system breaks a lot of > thngs. In fact, I think it breaks the definition of 'provable' or > 'refutable'. > >> >>> What you don't seem to understand is that much of what we have >>> logically proven, is based on higher order logical systems, which >>> these simple forms just can't handle. >>> >>> In particular, Computation theory, like much of mathematics, needs >>> second order (or higher) logic forms, which the simple logic just >>> can't handle. >> >> I created Minimal Type Theory to express HOL using very slightly >> adapted syntax of FOL. In an early version of MTT it translated its >> expressions into directed graphs so that pathological self-reference >> could be seen as infinite cycle in the di-graph. >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF >> > > Again, the error you are going to run into is your system is now based > on an uncountable number of inital truths, so a lot of the rules for > reasoning break down. This makes you system VERY prone to becoming > inconsistent (if not a certainty). > > There are problems when you allow uncountable infinites into your base > logic. > Uncountable truths that are entirely comprised of different combinations of countable constituent parts are evaluatable on the basis of these constituents that are later recombined back into the original expression. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <wPAfK.780$JXmb.391@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #50473 |
On 5/13/22 5:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 3:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/13/22 3:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 1:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2022-05-13 11:20, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it >>>>>>>>> takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be >>>>>>>>> true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a >>>>>>>>> deductive argument is said to be invalid. >>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is >>>>>>>>> valid and even though premises and conclusion are semantically >>>>>>>>> unrelated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually >>>>>>>> means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a >>>>>>>> conditional statement. It has no conclusion]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>> (b) Water is a kind of concrete. >>>>>>> (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is >>>>>>> not a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, >>>>>>> thus meets the above validity criteria. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of >>>>>> green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth >>>>>> *assignment* under which the premises are true and the conclusion >>>>>> is false. The actual truth values of these expressions don't play >>>>>> a role in the definition of validity. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level >>>>> abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. >>>>> >>>>> Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: >>>>> >>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a >>>>> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of >>>>> its premises. >>>>> >>>>> Into a concrete example of the issue that it corrects, quite yet. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue* >>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it >>>>>>>>> takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary >>>>>>>>> consequence of all of its premises. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And that differs from the standard definition how exactly? >>>>>>>> Unless you have some special personal meaning for 'necessary >>>>>>>> consequence' it would >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Semantic relevance is a key aspect of 'necessary consequence'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Defined how exactly? >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here is the original way that semantic relevance was defined: >>>>> Semantically unrelated premises and conclusion is not possible with >>>>> syllogisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >>>>> >>>>> Because syllogisms are comprised of >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> My first thought is that if you are going to be limiting your >>>> reasoning capability to simple things. You seem to be stuck in using >>>> simple logic methods, which will limit what you can actually prove. >>>> >>> >>> Not when all of natural language semantics has been fully formalized >>> and directly integrated into its own formal system. >> >> Nope doesn't work. Remember, formal system are based on a finite, or >> perhaps extended to countable, number of base axiom. >> >> I think you basis is going to hit the problem that the number of >> natural language 'facts' you are entering into your system isn't so >> limited. >> >> Having an uncountable number of axioms in your system breaks a lot of >> thngs. In fact, I think it breaks the definition of 'provable' or >> 'refutable'. >> >>> >>>> What you don't seem to understand is that much of what we have >>>> logically proven, is based on higher order logical systems, which >>>> these simple forms just can't handle. >>>> >>>> In particular, Computation theory, like much of mathematics, needs >>>> second order (or higher) logic forms, which the simple logic just >>>> can't handle. >>> >>> I created Minimal Type Theory to express HOL using very slightly >>> adapted syntax of FOL. In an early version of MTT it translated its >>> expressions into directed graphs so that pathological self-reference >>> could be seen as infinite cycle in the di-graph. >>> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF >>> >> >> Again, the error you are going to run into is your system is now based >> on an uncountable number of inital truths, so a lot of the rules for >> reasoning break down. This makes you system VERY prone to becoming >> inconsistent (if not a certainty). >> >> There are problems when you allow uncountable infinites into your base >> logic. >> > > Uncountable truths that are entirely comprised of different combinations > of countable constituent parts are evaluatable on the basis of these > constituents that are later recombined back into the original expression. > Nope, if you can create an uncountable number of combinations, you CAN'T just use the countable number of base elements. Proving is based on creating a FINITE (or countable) sequence of steps that combine a FINITE (or countable0 number of proven statements to show something. If the logic system can create an uncountable number of true statements to work from, then there may be an sequence from an UNCOUNATBLE number of steps fromt the countble base set, and thus beyond the reach of proving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 20:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87v8u9w8fx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50404 |
André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes: > On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: >> Semantic relevance is a key aspect of 'necessary consequence'. > > Defined how exactly? If ever a question demonstrated the power of hope over experience, this is it! -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 14:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XM6dnUj-mqkcJeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50411 |
On 5/13/2022 2:15 PM, Ben wrote: > André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes: > >> On 2022-05-13 12:50, olcott wrote: > >>> Semantic relevance is a key aspect of 'necessary consequence'. >> >> Defined how exactly? > > If ever a question demonstrated the power of hope over experience, this > is it! > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 20:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50393 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > *Validity and Soundness* Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you better find another topic you don't know about. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 15:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50413 |
On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> *Validity and Soundness* > > Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > better find another topic you don't know about. > It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input actually specifies. This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet my reviewers very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month period. Now my reviewers are playing a "hail Mary" claiming that even though the actual behavior of the actual input to H(P,P) actually factually is non-halting it is incorrect for H to report that is input is non-halting. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca74d9fd-2e33-40e7-b7d1-f2d072eff3f2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50429 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > > > >> *Validity and Soundness* > > > > Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > > better find another topic you don't know about. > > > It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > actually specifies. It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). > > This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet my > reviewers very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily > verifiable facts for this whole six month period. Projecting. Again. You're the one ignoring verifiable facts, not to mention detailed reasons why you are wrong. > > Now my reviewers are playing a "hail Mary" claiming that even though the > actual behavior of the actual input to H(P,P) actually factually is > non-halting it is incorrect for H to report that is input is non-halting. We recognize that you're H isn't mapping the halting function but some other function that you've defined.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 15:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0f-dnTOZ0rjaIOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50431 |
On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>> >>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>> >> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input >> actually specifies. > > It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). That is easily shown to be factually incorrect on the basis of the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct execution of P(P). They have empirically proven entirely different sequences of configurations. I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the easily verifiable facts. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ba2a54f-0729-47ca-a3a8-dc6d3ed922f9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50434 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> *Validity and Soundness* > >>> > >>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > >>> better find another topic you don't know about. > >>> > >> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > >> actually specifies. > > > > It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). > That is easily shown to be factually incorrect Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". > on the basis of the > correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct > execution of P(P). False, as has been explained many times. > They have empirically proven entirely different > sequences of configurations. Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. > > I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the > easily verifiable facts. So no time for yourself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 15:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4KidnfWFNeX3XeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50436 |
On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>> >>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>> >>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input >>>> actually specifies. >>> >>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). >> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect > > Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. >> on the basis of the >> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct >> execution of P(P). > > False, as has been explained many times. > >> They have empirically proven entirely different >> sequences of configurations. > > Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your expectation incorrect. >> >> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the >> easily verifiable facts. > > So no time for yourself? H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly decide the halt status that its input specifies. That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your expectation incorrect. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <868c573f-713a-4dd2-a310-50e4a637d7e4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50440 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* > >>>>> > >>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > >>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. > >>>>> > >>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > >>>> actually specifies. > >>> > >>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). > >> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect > > > > Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". > No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. > >> on the basis of the > >> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct > >> execution of P(P). > > > > False, as has been explained many times. > > > >> They have empirically proven entirely different > >> sequences of configurations. > > > > Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. > That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input > specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. > > That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > expectation incorrect. > >> > >> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the > >> easily verifiable facts. > > > > So no time for yourself? > H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly > decide the halt status that its input specifies. The input, by definition, specifies P(P). P(P) halts, therefore by definition the correct answer is 1. H(P,P)==0, therefore H is wrong. > > That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > expectation incorrect. More projection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] |
| Message-ID | <Kb2dnUW7ONKrVOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50448 |
On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>>> >>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input >>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>> >>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). >>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect >>> >>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". >> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. >>>> on the basis of the >>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct >>>> execution of P(P). >>> >>> False, as has been explained many times. >>> >>>> They have empirically proven entirely different >>>> sequences of configurations. >>> >>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. >> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input >> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. >> >> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your >> expectation incorrect. >>>> >>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the >>>> easily verifiable facts. >>> >>> So no time for yourself? >> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly >> decide the halt status that its input specifies. > > The input, by definition, specifies P(P). That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. It is empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is correct on the basis of the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) by H. It is proven to be correct because the execution trace derived by H matches the behavior specified by the x86 source-code of P. There really are no weasel words around this and any of these weasel words that you try to use only make you look very foolish. > P(P) halts, therefore by definition the correct answer is 1. H(P,P)==0, therefore H is wrong. > >> >> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your >> expectation incorrect. > > More projection. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 14:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] |
| Message-ID | <95f0c256-4987-46b8-98f9-2b047bd07695n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50452 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > >>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > >>>>>> actually specifies. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). > >>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect > >>> > >>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". > >> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. > >>>> on the basis of the > >>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct > >>>> execution of P(P). > >>> > >>> False, as has been explained many times. > >>> > >>>> They have empirically proven entirely different > >>>> sequences of configurations. > >>> > >>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. > >> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input > >> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. > >> > >> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > >> expectation incorrect. > >>>> > >>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the > >>>> easily verifiable facts. > >>> > >>> So no time for yourself? > >> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly > >> decide the halt status that its input specifies. > > > > The input, by definition, specifies P(P). > That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. So you're saying the requirement can't be met? That means you agree with the conclusion of the halting problem proofs that there is no input you can give to H to correctly determine whether P(P) halts. > > It is empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is correct on the basis of the > correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) by H. > > It is proven to be correct because the execution trace derived by H > matches the behavior specified by the x86 source-code of P. You mean like how the execution trace of Ha3(N,5) matches the behavior specified by the x86 source code of N, proving by your logic that Ha3(N,5)==false is correct? > > There really are no weasel words around this and any of these weasel > words that you try to use only make you look very foolish. Yet more projection. When are you going to open that movie theater? I can't wait to see how nice the picture looks! > > P(P) halts, therefore by definition the correct answer is 1. H(P,P)==0, therefore H is wrong. > > > >> > >> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > >> expectation incorrect. > > > > More projection. > -- > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott > > "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > Genius hits a target no one else can see." > Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web