Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #333273 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-04-19 19:41 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 309 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-17 23:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:31 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 20:11 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 21:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 21:25 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 22:50 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 22:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 07:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:18 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-20 10:41 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-21 10:50 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:05 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:11 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 11:26 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:03 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 18:14 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 10:49 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-23 11:10 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:21 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-24 11:42 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-24 12:31 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:54 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-24 12:49 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 11:01 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-25 11:26 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:27 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:40 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 15:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 11:19 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 13:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:16 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-27 11:18 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 12:34 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:41 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:09 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:13 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 15:04 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:08 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:01 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:11 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 11:19 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 08:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 11:31 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:55 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 11:41 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-26 11:42 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:52 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 19:20 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 01:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 08:56 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-20 10:54 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 10:20 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 11:39 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-21 10:57 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 12:35 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 18:27 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 10:52 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 12:37 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-23 11:21 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:31 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-24 11:35 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 10:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:17 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 20:49 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 22:00 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 23:38 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:56 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:02 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-25 11:16 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:50 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 10:47 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 14:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-26 11:32 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 08:54 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-27 11:24 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:39 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 11:36 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:22 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 07:31 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 09:48 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 11:10 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 10:27 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 12:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 13:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:12 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:01 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:15 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:17 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:11 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:24 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 20:26 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 20:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 22:18 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 22:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 23:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 23:07 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 07:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 09:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 12:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 15:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 14:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:24 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 16:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:56 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 18:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 20:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 11:40 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:29 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:11 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:40 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 22:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 10:56 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 15:34 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 12:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 11:31 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:15 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 13:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 16:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 16:18 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 17:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 17:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 18:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 19:32 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:07 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 21:05 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 20:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 22:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 22:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-05 12:36 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:00 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 15:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:27 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 16:57 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:37 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-05 13:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:41 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:33 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 15:47 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 15:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:57 -0400
your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:38 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:05 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:27 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:53 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:06 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 07:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 10:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 11:48 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-25 11:11 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:08 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:55 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-26 12:16 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 11:21 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-27 11:41 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:21 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 12:01 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:24 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:24 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:32 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:04 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 20:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 15:01 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:06 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:06 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:19 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:44 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 21:27 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:02 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:43 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 07:21 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 11:11 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 08:17 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 11:27 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 11:51 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 00:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 07:34 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:51 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:23 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 14:04 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 16:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 16:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:39 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 00:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 07:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 07:17 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 08:53 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 12:41 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:37 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:42 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 14:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 17:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 16:38 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 19:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 21:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 23:35 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 07:35 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 10:39 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:00 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 22:02 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 23:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:09 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 12:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 10:45 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 13:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:33 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-19 10:48 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 07:12 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:20 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 19:41 -0400
Page 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-27 08:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0ivqh$d40l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333426 |
On 4/27/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-26 16:21:21 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> That is like saying we cannot know that 2 + 3 = 5 because people
>> simply do not "believe in" numbers or arithmetic.
>
> There really are that kind of people. They usually don't believe
> that 2 + 3 = 5 because they learned it before they learned that
> one can disbelieve. But people often disbelieve logical proofs
> because they learned about proofs only when they already had
> learned to disbelieve, and even then not very much about proofs,
> just enough to disbelieve. Consequently, there are people posting
> in various newgroups that they have found a solution to a problem
> that is proven unsolvable.
>
Likewise most people have been indoctrinated to believe that the
errors of logic are not errors.
When we encode the principle of explosion as a syllogism:
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is not a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a butterfly.
The conclusion does not follow from the premises,
thus the non-sequitur error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of
contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of
contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be
true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p
is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
{A, ~A} ⊨ FALSE fixes this problem
--
Copyright 2024 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 | 2024-04-27 13:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0jc7m$2djoe$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333430 |
On 4/27/24 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/27/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-04-26 16:21:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> That is like saying we cannot know that 2 + 3 = 5 because people
>>> simply do not "believe in" numbers or arithmetic.
>>
>> There really are that kind of people. They usually don't believe
>> that 2 + 3 = 5 because they learned it before they learned that
>> one can disbelieve. But people often disbelieve logical proofs
>> because they learned about proofs only when they already had
>> learned to disbelieve, and even then not very much about proofs,
>> just enough to disbelieve. Consequently, there are people posting
>> in various newgroups that they have found a solution to a problem
>> that is proven unsolvable.
>>
>
> Likewise most people have been indoctrinated to believe that the
> errors of logic are not errors.
>
> When we encode the principle of explosion as a syllogism:
> Socrates is a man.
> Socrates is not a man.
> Therefore, Socrates is a butterfly.
> The conclusion does not follow from the premises,
> thus the non-sequitur error.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
But you skipped the steps of the actual proof.
The POE logic would be:
Since Socrates is a Man, then we can also say as a true statement that
Socrates is either a Man or a butterfly.
(DO you disagree with that, if so why?)
Now, Given that Socrates is either a Man or a Butterfly, if we combine
that with the second statement, that he is not a man, since he was
either a Man or a Butterfly, if he isn't a Man, then he MUST be a butterfly.
(Again, what is wrong with that step of logic?)
Thus, YES, we can get from Socrates is a Man, and Socrates is NOT a Man,
to the statement that Socrates is a Butterfly by conventional logic.
Note, The "absurd" answer comes out of the fact that we have an "absurd"
truthmaker, that Socrates, who is a Man, is also NOT a Man.
Thus, what every system that came from, FAILS to meet the requirements
of the Law of Non-Contradiction, as it is a Contradictory system.
And the Principle of Explosion says that in a system with the "normal"
logic rules, once it fails to be non-contradictory on one point, then
any false statement can be proven.
There are various forms of logic that restrict the forms of logical
arguements that can be used the limit the principle of explosion, but
the principle of explosion only applies to a system that has already
developed at least one contradiction in it.
>
> In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of
> contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of
> contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be
> true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p
> is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>
> {A, ~A} ⊨ FALSE fixes this problem
>
Nope, because such a statment doesn't enforce that A and ~A have
opposite values, it just states that for the system to remain
consistantt they must have opposite value.
This just shows that you fundamentally don't understand how logic works.
That statement is just the requirement for a system to be
non-contradictory. And yes, IF The system obeys it, then POE has no
affect. The problem is that with the standard logic, if just ONE
statement fails that test, then it can be shown that for ANY statement
(that is truth bearing) it can also be shown to fail that test.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-28 12:01 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0l3a0$vanr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333430 |
On 2024-04-27 13:50:08 +0000, olcott said:
> On 4/27/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-04-26 16:21:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> That is like saying we cannot know that 2 + 3 = 5 because people
>>> simply do not "believe in" numbers or arithmetic.
>>
>> There really are that kind of people. They usually don't believe
>> that 2 + 3 = 5 because they learned it before they learned that
>> one can disbelieve. But people often disbelieve logical proofs
>> because they learned about proofs only when they already had
>> learned to disbelieve, and even then not very much about proofs,
>> just enough to disbelieve. Consequently, there are people posting
>> in various newgroups that they have found a solution to a problem
>> that is proven unsolvable.
>>
>
> Likewise most people have been indoctrinated to believe that the
> errors of logic are not errors.
Most? How many you asked? I have never heard anybody saying anything
like that.
> When we encode the principle of explosion as a syllogism:
> Socrates is a man.
> Socrates is not a man.
> Therefore, Socrates is a butterfly.
That is not a valid syllogism.
> The conclusion does not follow from the premises,
> thus the non-sequitur error.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
Correct but not relevant as it is an example of a non-syllogism
and therefore does not demonstrage anything about the principle
of explosion.
> In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of
> contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of
> contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be
> true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p
> is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>
> {A, ~A} ⊨ FALSE fixes this problem
In ordinary logic {A, ~A} ⊨ FALSE is a valid infeference and so is
{A, ~A} ⊨ whatever, so what is "fixed"?
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-28 08:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0lin5$12ip9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333471 |
On 4/28/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-27 13:50:08 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 4/27/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-26 16:21:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> That is like saying we cannot know that 2 + 3 = 5 because people
>>>> simply do not "believe in" numbers or arithmetic.
>>>
>>> There really are that kind of people. They usually don't believe
>>> that 2 + 3 = 5 because they learned it before they learned that
>>> one can disbelieve. But people often disbelieve logical proofs
>>> because they learned about proofs only when they already had
>>> learned to disbelieve, and even then not very much about proofs,
>>> just enough to disbelieve. Consequently, there are people posting
>>> in various newgroups that they have found a solution to a problem
>>> that is proven unsolvable.
>>>
>>
>> Likewise most people have been indoctrinated to believe that the
>> errors of logic are not errors.
>
> Most? How many you asked? I have never heard anybody saying anything
> like that.
>
>> When we encode the principle of explosion as a syllogism:
>> Socrates is a man.
>> Socrates is not a man.
>> Therefore, Socrates is a butterfly.
>
> That is not a valid syllogism.
>
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
*It is categorically impossible to show*
(a) How the above two categorical propositions entail B.
(b) That the above syllogism is not isomorphic to POE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>> The conclusion does not follow from the premises,
>> thus the non-sequitur error.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>
> Correct but not relevant as it is an example of a non-syllogism
> and therefore does not demonstrage anything about the principle
> of explosion.
>
I gave my better example of POE as a syllogism.
>> In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of
>> contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of
>> contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be
>> true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p
>> is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>>
>> {A, ~A} ⊨ FALSE fixes this problem
>
> In ordinary logic {A, ~A} ⊨ FALSE is a valid infeference and so is
> {A, ~A} ⊨ whatever, so what is "fixed"?
>
{A, ~A} only semantically entails FALSE thus if one is not moronically
stupid (or indoctrinated into nonsense) one can see there is no other
semantics left over that can be carried to the proposition.
Compared to other areas of mathematical logic such as proof theory,
model theory is often less concerned with formal rigour and closer in
spirit to classical mathematics. This has prompted the comment that "if
proof theory is about the sacred, then model theory is about the
profane".[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory
--
Copyright 2024 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-29 12:24 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0np15$1llt9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333479 |
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: > Translated into a syllogism: > > All A are True > No A are True > Therefore B Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-29 09:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0ob1e$1pbn5$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333543 |
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: > >> Translated into a syllogism: >> >> All A are True >> No A are True >> Therefore B > > Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? > (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: Proposition A is True. Proposition A is False. Therefore B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. -- Copyright 2024 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-29 18:04 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0ocuq$1qcqi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333552 |
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> Translated into a syllogism: >>> >>> All A are True >>> No A are True >>> Therefore B >> >> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >> > > (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: > Proposition A is True. > Proposition A is False. > Therefore B > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion > > (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves > that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-29 10:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0odv3$1qgpk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333557 |
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> Translated into a syllogism: >>>> >>>> All A are True >>>> No A are True >>>> Therefore B >>> >>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>> >> >> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >> Proposition A is True. >> Proposition A is False. >> Therefore B >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >> >> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. > > What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms > of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition proves that the premises are the categorical propositions required by syllogisms, and these are isomorphic to the POE premises. The fact that the conclusion is simply copied proves that it was "translated" correctly. When the POE argument is corrected translated into a syllogism and this syllogism has the non-sequitur error that then proves the POE argument also has this same error. Assuming that (A and ~A) are true was the mistake of the POE proof. We could equally assume that 2 > 5, thus 2 + 1 > 5. -- Copyright 2024 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 | 2024-04-29 20:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0peo7$2ki5s$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333560 |
On 4/29/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> Translated into a syllogism: >>>>> >>>>> All A are True >>>>> No A are True >>>>> Therefore B >>>> >>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>> >>> >>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >>> Proposition A is True. >>> Proposition A is False. >>> Therefore B >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >>> >>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. >> >> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle. >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition > proves that the premises are the categorical propositions > required by syllogisms, and these are isomorphic to the POE > premises. The fact that the conclusion is simply copied > proves that it was "translated" correctly. > > When the POE argument is corrected translated into a > syllogism and this syllogism has the non-sequitur error > that then proves the POE argument also has this same error. > > Assuming that (A and ~A) are true was the mistake of the POE proof. > We could equally assume that 2 > 5, thus 2 + 1 > 5. > But it is the PRE-CONDITION of the Principle of Explosion. If you think it can never happen, then you shouldn't worry about the Principle of Explosion. Of course, once it DOES happen due to some error, the BOOM goes the logic system. Your statement just proves you don't understand how logic actually works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-30 15:01 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0qmi5$2eont$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333560 |
On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> Translated into a syllogism:
>>>>>
>>>>> All A are True
>>>>> No A are True
>>>>> Therefore B
>>>>
>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference?
>>>>
>>>
>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
>>> Proposition A is True.
>>> Proposition A is False.
>>> Therefore B
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>
>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
>>
>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
does.
> proves that the premises are the categorical propositions
> required by syllogisms, and these are isomorphic to the POE
> premises. The fact that the conclusion is simply copied
> proves that it was "translated" correctly.
The result of the translation is not a syllogism and the conclusion
does not follow by the rules of syllogistc logic. Threfore you have
not proven that the principle of explosion is true about syllogistic
logic. (Is is true about modern ordinary logic, which have different
rules of inference.)
> When the POE argument is corrected translated into a
> syllogism and this syllogism has the non-sequitur error
> that then proves the POE argument also has this same error.
The translation is not correct as the result is not a valid
syllogism.
> Assuming that (A and ~A) are true was the mistake of the POE proof.
> We could equally assume that 2 > 5, thus 2 + 1 > 5.
A proof that starts with a false assumption is never sound. The
conclusion of the proof may be false if at least one of the premises
is false. This is the idea behind indirect proofs: if one can prove
False or any contradiction then one has proven that one of the permises
is false.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-30 11:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0r4tg$2hb7o$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333583 |
On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> Translated into a syllogism: >>>>>> >>>>>> All A are True >>>>>> No A are True >>>>>> Therefore B >>>>> >>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>> >>>> >>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >>>> Proposition A is True. >>>> Proposition A is False. >>>> Therefore B >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >>>> >>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. >>> >>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle. >>> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition > > That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism > does. > This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >> proves that the premises are the categorical propositions >> required by syllogisms, and these are isomorphic to the POE >> premises. The fact that the conclusion is simply copied >> proves that it was "translated" correctly. > > The result of the translation is not a syllogism and the conclusion It <is> a syllogism with the non-sequitur error as I have been saying all along This seems to be related to what you are saying: Proposition A is True. Proposition A is False. Therefore B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion Translated into a syllogism: All A are True No A are True Therefore B *It is categorically impossible to show* (a) How the above two categorical propositions entail B. (b) That the above syllogism is not isomorphic to POE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition > does not follow by the rules of syllogistc logic. Threfore you have > not proven that the principle of explosion is true about syllogistic I am proving the the POE is merely the non-sequitur error. > logic. (Is is true about modern ordinary logic, which have different > rules of inference.) > >> When the POE argument is corrected translated into a >> syllogism and this syllogism has the non-sequitur error >> that then proves the POE argument also has this same error. > > The translation is not correct as the result is not a valid > syllogism. > The translation is correct and results in a syllogism with the non-sequitur error as I have been saying all along. >> Assuming that (A and ~A) are true was the mistake of the POE proof. >> We could equally assume that 2 > 5, thus 2 + 1 > 5. > > A proof that starts with a false assumption is never sound. The Yes and the false assumption of POE is that: (A and ~A) are true When we reject that then the POE cannot exist. > conclusion of the proof may be false if at least one of the premises > is false. This is the idea behind indirect proofs: if one can prove > False or any contradiction then one has proven that one of the permises > is false. > -- Copyright 2024 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 12:06 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0t0n4$32utt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333587 |
On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Translated into a syllogism: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All A are True >>>>>>> No A are True >>>>>>> Therefore B >>>>>> >>>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >>>>> Proposition A is True. >>>>> Proposition A is False. >>>>> Therefore B >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >>>>> >>>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. >>>> >>>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle. >>>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition >> >> That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism >> does. >> > > This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is. Your "syllogism" has not that form. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 10:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0tmiq$37lgj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333594 |
On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translated into a syllogism: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All A are True >>>>>>>> No A are True >>>>>>>> Therefore B >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >>>>>> Proposition A is True. >>>>>> Proposition A is False. >>>>>> Therefore B >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >>>>>> >>>>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. >>>>> >>>>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle. >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition >>> >>> That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism >>> does. >>> >> >> This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure > > THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is. > Your "syllogism" has not that form. > *This part is correct* Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms. *This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect* "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:" By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error. -- Copyright 2024 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 | 2024-05-01 20:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0unl7$2qov4$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333598 |
On 5/1/24 11:19 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Translated into a syllogism: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All A are True >>>>>>>>> No A are True >>>>>>>>> Therefore B >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >>>>>>> Proposition A is True. >>>>>>> Proposition A is False. >>>>>>> Therefore B >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >>>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. >>>>>> >>>>>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition >>>> >>>> That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism >>>> does. >>>> >>> >>> This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >> >> THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is. >> Your "syllogism" has not that form. >> > > *This part is correct* > Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition > contains two categorical terms. > > *This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect* > "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:" > > By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we > see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error. > Which makes it not a valid syllogism. That doesn't make it a false statement. LOTS of true statements/theories can't be reduced to a valid syllogism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 21:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0utlq$3k2rj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333604 |
On 5/1/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Translated into a syllogism:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All A are True
>>>>>>>>>> No A are True
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore B
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
>>>>>>>> Proposition A is True.
>>>>>>>> Proposition A is False.
>>>>>>>> Therefore B
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
>>>>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
>>>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>>>>>
>>>>> That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
>>>>> does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>
>>> THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
>>> Your "syllogism" has not that form.
>>>
>>
>> *This part is correct*
>> Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical
>> proposition contains two categorical terms.
>>
>> *This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect*
>> "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
>>
>> By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we
>> see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
>>
>
> Which makes it not a valid syllogism.
>
> That doesn't make it a false statement.
>
> LOTS of true statements/theories can't be reduced to a valid syllogism.
The ONLY reason why it is not a valid syllogism is that it
was correctly translated from the POE arguments thus proving
that the POE arguments have always been invalid despite
dictatorial fiat to the contrary.
The proof that you provided started with the dictatorial
fiat that says{A is true} AND {A is false}.
Why does no one apply the principle of non-contradiction here?
contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same
sense at the same time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
--
Copyright 2024 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 | 2024-05-02 00:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0v396$2qov3$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333605 |
On 5/1/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/1/24 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Translated into a syllogism:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All A are True
>>>>>>>>>>> No A are True
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore B
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
>>>>>>>>> Proposition A is True.
>>>>>>>>> Proposition A is False.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore B
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
>>>>>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
>>>>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>
>>>> THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
>>>> Your "syllogism" has not that form.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This part is correct*
>>> Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical
>>> proposition contains two categorical terms.
>>>
>>> *This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect*
>>> "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
>>>
>>> By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we
>>> see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
>>>
>>
>> Which makes it not a valid syllogism.
>>
>> That doesn't make it a false statement.
>>
>> LOTS of true statements/theories can't be reduced to a valid syllogism.
>
> The ONLY reason why it is not a valid syllogism is that it
> was correctly translated from the POE arguments thus proving
> that the POE arguments have always been invalid despite
> dictatorial fiat to the contrary.
>
> The proof that you provided started with the dictatorial
> fiat that says{A is true} AND {A is false}.
>
> Why does no one apply the principle of non-contradiction here?
>
> contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same
> sense at the same time
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>
Nope.
Just prove you don't understand how logic works.
I guess you are admitting that everything YOU have said is also invalid
as it can't be expressed as a single syllogism.
You are just proving your stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 23:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0v5kt$3ljbq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333611 |
On 5/1/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/24 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Translated into a syllogism:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All A are True
>>>>>>>>>>>> No A are True
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore B
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that
>>>>>>>>>>> inference?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
>>>>>>>>>> Proposition A is True.
>>>>>>>>>> Proposition A is False.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore B
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
>>>>>>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
>>>>>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>
>>>>> THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
>>>>> Your "syllogism" has not that form.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This part is correct*
>>>> Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical
>>>> proposition contains two categorical terms.
>>>>
>>>> *This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect*
>>>> "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
>>>>
>>>> By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we
>>>> see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which makes it not a valid syllogism.
>>>
>>> That doesn't make it a false statement.
>>>
>>> LOTS of true statements/theories can't be reduced to a valid syllogism.
>>
>> The ONLY reason why it is not a valid syllogism is that it
>> was correctly translated from the POE arguments thus proving
>> that the POE arguments have always been invalid despite
>> dictatorial fiat to the contrary.
>>
>> The proof that you provided started with the dictatorial
>> fiat that says{A is true} AND {A is false}.
>>
>> Why does no one apply the principle of non-contradiction here?
>>
>> contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same
>> sense at the same time
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Just prove you don't understand how logic works.
>
> I guess you are admitting that everything YOU have said is also invalid
> as it can't be expressed as a single syllogism.
>
> You are just proving your stupidity.
It is true that the POE argument was correctly
translated into its equivalent syllogism.
It is true that the resulting syllogism is invalid.
It is true that the resulting syllogism is invalid because the
translation correctly carried over the lack of a common term
between the premises and conclusion in the POE argument to this
same lack in the syllogism. This proves that the POE argument
is invalid.
--
Copyright 2024 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 | 2024-05-02 07:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0vsvk$2s5vr$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333616 |
On 5/2/24 12:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/1/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/24 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translated into a syllogism:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All A are True
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No A are True
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore B
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that
>>>>>>>>>>>> inference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition A is True.
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposition A is False.
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore B
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
>>>>>>>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
>>>>>>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
>>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
>>>>>> Your "syllogism" has not that form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *This part is correct*
>>>>> Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical
>>>>> proposition contains two categorical terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> *This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect*
>>>>> "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
>>>>>
>>>>> By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we
>>>>> see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which makes it not a valid syllogism.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't make it a false statement.
>>>>
>>>> LOTS of true statements/theories can't be reduced to a valid syllogism.
>>>
>>> The ONLY reason why it is not a valid syllogism is that it
>>> was correctly translated from the POE arguments thus proving
>>> that the POE arguments have always been invalid despite
>>> dictatorial fiat to the contrary.
>>>
>>> The proof that you provided started with the dictatorial
>>> fiat that says{A is true} AND {A is false}.
>>>
>>> Why does no one apply the principle of non-contradiction here?
>>>
>>> contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same
>>> sense at the same time
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Just prove you don't understand how logic works.
>>
>> I guess you are admitting that everything YOU have said is also
>> invalid as it can't be expressed as a single syllogism.
>>
>> You are just proving your stupidity.
>
> It is true that the POE argument was correctly
> translated into its equivalent syllogism.
> It is true that the resulting syllogism is invalid.
>
> It is true that the resulting syllogism is invalid because the
> translation correctly carried over the lack of a common term
> between the premises and conclusion in the POE argument to this
> same lack in the syllogism. This proves that the POE argument
> is invalid.
>
Nope, unless you are admitting that most of YOUR claims are also
invalid, as they are not expressed as a valid syllogism.
Not a valid syllogism -> not a valid logical statement is NOT a valid
arguement.
You are just proving that you mind can only think in the most simple
terms and anything beyond that is just beyond what you can handle.
You are just proving how much of an ignorant pathological lying idiot
you actually are.
You are worse than the election deniers that you rail against.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-02 11:11 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v0vhr7$3o5tp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333598 |
On 2024-05-01 15:19:54 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Translated into a syllogism: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All A are True >>>>>>>>> No A are True >>>>>>>>> Therefore B >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >>>>>>> Proposition A is True. >>>>>>> Proposition A is False. >>>>>>> Therefore B >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >>>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. >>>>>> >>>>>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition >>>> >>>> That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism >>>> does. >>>> >>> >>> This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >> >> THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is. >> Your "syllogism" has not that form. >> > > *This part is correct* > Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical > proposition contains two categorical terms. > > *This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect* > "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:" There is nothing incorrect in that. In every syllogism each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion. That this is not true about yor "syllogism" simply means that your "syllogism" is not true. (Etymologically the term "syllogism" is reference to the common words.) > By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we > see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error. No, but we do see that your "syllogism" is not a syllogism. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-02 08:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies |
| Message-ID | <v103p6$3s7vi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333618 |
On 5/2/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-01 15:19:54 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Translated into a syllogism: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All A are True >>>>>>>>>> No A are True >>>>>>>>>> Therefore B >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >>>>>>>> Proposition A is True. >>>>>>>> Proposition A is False. >>>>>>>> Therefore B >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >>>>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition >>>>> >>>>> That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism >>>>> does. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >>> >>> THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is. >>> Your "syllogism" has not that form. >>> >> >> *This part is correct* >> Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical >> proposition contains two categorical terms. >> >> *This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect* >> "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:" > > There is nothing incorrect in that. In every syllogism each of the > premises has one term in common with the conclusion. That this is > not true about yor "syllogism" Only because this error already exists in the POE argument, thus the same error is transferred to the syllogism when the POE argument is accurately translated into the syllogism. > simply means that your "syllogism" > is not true. (Etymologically the term "syllogism" is reference to > the common words.) > >> By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we >> see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error. > > No, but we do see that your "syllogism" is not a syllogism. > It is the exact same invalid syllogism with the non-sequitur as the POE argument that it was translated from. (A is True) and (A is False) should have been rejected by the principle of non-contradiction before the POE argument was ever evaluated. The only reason that they were not is the dictatorial fiat of arbitrary convention. -- Copyright 2024 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 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web