Prev: [ An AD(n) = (L(n,n) + 1) mod 9 -> An AD(n) =/= L(n,n) ] -> Higher Infinities
Next: -> Higher Infinities
From: Frederick Williams on 19 Jun 2010 11:07
"David C. Ullrich" wrote:

> No, it is not true that FOL includes inference rules.

Because you are taking a "logic" to be a set of formulae (or perhaps
sentences)?

--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: George Greene on 19 Jun 2010 14:43
On Jun 19, 11:07 am, Frederick Williams
<frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net> wrote:
> "David C. Ullrich" wrote:
> > No, it is not true that FOL includes inference rules.
>
> Because you are taking a "logic" to be a set of formulae (or perhaps
> sentences)?

No, because DCU is JUST LYING.

One way to define ANY logic is by its inference rules.
Even if these are not the totality of the definition, they
are ALWAYS a CRUCIAL part of it.
It doesn't need to be any PARTICULAR inference rule, though.
FOL in particular can be defined with ONE inference rule
(resolution).
However, resolution is not the only rule adequate to that task, nor
is that singleton set-of-inference-rules necessarily even the
preferred set.

From: Frederick Williams on 19 Jun 2010 14:48
George Greene wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 11:07 am, Frederick Williams
> <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net> wrote:
> > "David C. Ullrich" wrote:
> > > No, it is not true that FOL includes inference rules.
> >
> > Because you are taking a "logic" to be a set of formulae (or perhaps
> > sentences)?
>
> No, because DCU is JUST LYING.

No, David Ullrich is just writing something with which you disagree. To
call that JUST LYING is unnecessarily offensive.

> One way to define ANY logic is by its inference rules.
> Even if these are not the totality of the definition, they
> are ALWAYS a CRUCIAL part of it.
> It doesn't need to be any PARTICULAR inference rule, though.
> FOL in particular can be defined with ONE inference rule
> (resolution).
> However, resolution is not the only rule adequate to that task, nor
> is that singleton set-of-inference-rules necessarily even the
> preferred set.


--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: George Greene on 20 Jun 2010 01:58
On Jun 19, 2:48 pm, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net>
wrote:

> > > "David C. Ullrich" wrote:
> > > > No, it is not true that FOL includes inference rules.
>
> > > Because you are taking a "logic" to be a set of formulae (or perhaps
> > > sentences)?
......
> > No, because DCU is JUST LYING.
>
> No, David Ullrich is just writing something with which you disagree.

IDIOT:
I AM NOT THE ONLY one who disagrees:
GLOBAL USAGE GENERALLY disagrees.
What DCU said here is OBjectively false; this is NOT
a matter of OPINION or my SUBjective take on anything.
Which means you are lying, TOO.

This was NOT UNnecessarily offensive.
From: Frederick Williams on 20 Jun 2010 10:45
George Greene wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2:48 pm, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > > "David C. Ullrich" wrote:
> > > > > No, it is not true that FOL includes inference rules.
> >
> > > > Because you are taking a "logic" to be a set of formulae (or perhaps
> > > > sentences)?
> .....
> > > No, because DCU is JUST LYING.
> >
> > No, David Ullrich is just writing something with which you disagree.
>
> IDIOT:
> I AM NOT THE ONLY one who disagrees:
> GLOBAL USAGE GENERALLY disagrees.
> What DCU said here is OBjectively false; this is NOT
> a matter of OPINION or my SUBjective take on anything.
> Which means you are lying, TOO.

A lie is an untruth told with the intention of deceiving, so I don't
think either of us is lying.

> This was NOT UNnecessarily offensive.


--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: [ An AD(n) = (L(n,n) + 1) mod 9 -> An AD(n) =/= L(n,n) ] -> Higher Infinities
Next: -> Higher Infinities