In a Consistent System, Can a True Sentence Imply a False One?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: when math defines the boundary between finite versus infinite at 10^500 #696 Correcting Math
Next: FLT like 4Color Mapping, Poincare C. and Kepler Packing #697 Correcting Math
From: herbzet on 1 Aug 2010 20:38 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Humorous misunderstandings, such as we might see in a sitcom, would > inevitably follow. Ha-ha! "Hilarity ensues!"
From: herbzet on 1 Aug 2010 20:38 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Marshall writes: > > The only person on this newsgroup that reminds me of is you, Aatu. > > I try my best... Thank you for these kind words. On an unŕelated note, > yours is a nice example of a garden path sentence; it took me a while to > parse it correctly -- at first I thought you were going to say something > about the only person who on this newsgroup reminds you of something, a > hypothesis I had to give up when it become apparent it made nonsense of > the rest of the sentence. Parsing English, so it seems, requires > unbounded lookahead. Hm, a lot of the problem with my writing is that maybe.
From: herbzet on 1 Aug 2010 20:39 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Well, this is not really a pun, but I once came up with a hilarious > scenario that alas only really makes sense in Finnish. I am informed that this is killer Finnish humor: "Vihdoin vihdoin vihdoin." ???
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 2 Aug 2010 00:32 herbzet <herbzet(a)gmail.com> writes: > I am informed that this is killer Finnish humor: > > "Vihdoin vihdoin vihdoin." > > ??? Well, no. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Nam Nguyen on 2 Aug 2010 03:18
MoeBlee wrote: > To Nam Nguyen: > > I'd like to ask you a question about your own thoughts on your > interaction in this forum. > > Over and over again, we find you in dramatic disagreement with a > number of people who are well informed (some of them professionals and > some at a professional level of knowledge even if not actual > professionals; by the way, I don't include myself) about logic - > sometimes to the point that some of these people just give up trying > to reason with you. This is a distinct pattern: one controversy after > another after another in which you have your own staunch position on > some matter in logic while a certain number of professional logicians > and others well informed make post after post with their arguments as > to what is incorrect in your position. Iirc, they pointed minor error on a couple occasions which overall didn't effect my (key) positions arguments, and I think I did likewise to the. So unless you have a concrete example, I'd think "incorrectness" here was just a perception. > What I > wonder about though is what thoughts go through your mind when this > happens over and over. Do you ever wonder why, over and over and for > years, you're so often alone in disagreement with some number of > professional logicians? Do you think that it's a fluke in the way > things are? Do you think it's just that by some fluke these people > happen not to understand these particular matters while you do? The following was a conversation between DCU and me, Dec. 2005 ("About Consistency in 1st Order Theories"): DCU: wrote: >> Exactly what the objective is is not clear to me. It seems possible >> that you might want to call it something other than "logic". >> Because whatever it is, it seems that in the thing you're looking >> for the "logic" is going to vary from person to person, and I >> suspect it's going to seem to a lot of people like the whole >> point to _logic_ is to study _correct_ reasoning, which will >> _not_ vary from person to person. To answer your questions above, within my own opinions, I suspect it's not a fluke: people would tend disagree with me or would try to find as many reasons as possible to disagree with me, because the concept of relativity of mathematical reasoning in FOL isn't readily "well-received". Though I don't think it was so much a not-understanding as a misunderstanding between the 2 sides. > > Again, I'm not arguing that you should change your positions MERELY > because some varying number of professional logicians point our their > disagreement. Rather, I'm just asking why you think this situation > occurs so often. What do you think accounts for it? > > I'm sincerely interested in what you think about this. It's in no way everything I could share with you or others but I've shared some of thoughts on this issue. *** Not long ago JB asked me to be in my opponents' shoe, so to speak, and list out what I'd think as their best arguments against my positions. I thought that would be a good exercise for 2 sides to see eye-to-eye on debated issues, with JB playing an impartial role. And did list out with some details, as requested. But then nobody seemed to care and my listing out seemed to be a waste of time. The long and short of it, MoeBlee, is at this time I think it's best to let go any desire to "dissect" what is non-technical in the past and constructively consider the possible technical answers for Q1 and Q2. Nothing else would matter much to me moving forward, is my opinion. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them. Zen Quotes by Alan Watt ----------------------------------------------------------- |