Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 24, 2019.
2503, 512, 3405, 3826, 3960, 4878, 4954, 5002, 5057, 5143, 5187
why not use better grammar?
a 'condition' of those who did something other than going right.
It is also:
a 'condition' of those who did something other than going left.
and its negation is "simply not go left"
giving you every logic violation known to man
you have not explained your conclusion
it fails in the example I gave you and even the bird with his pie example, you spent weeks now trying to come up with a valid method to make it work and have failed every time.
just because you didnt quote me doesnt mean I didnt explain it. you failed to source your claim proving your interpretation of logic is correct, therefore you failed to make a valid claim, sorry.
yellow is not green
yellow is not red
Delete. I misread a post and my reply does not apply.
512 is from a different thread
You have more patience than I do, but yeah, I've been trying to explain for quite some time now that the A/B variables in "A and B" stand for propositions . . . for true/false statements. A has to be a proposition and B has to be a proposition. "Yellow" is not a proposition. The moment the rules of logic are actually utilized, the supposed "challenges" based on additive color mixing completely disappear.
I've tutored logic for years. My students frequently (at least initially) have difficulty understanding things like disjunctions being non-exclusive ("A or B" can include BOTH A and B being true) and how conditionals work as opposed to biconditionals ("If A, then B" does not mean A IF AND ONLY IF B). But I've never had a student struggle with the concept that the letters represent propositions. This thread is the first time I've encountered that failure. And I don't understand how it takes so many thread pages to correct such a simple mistake . . . which every intro to logic text covers in its opening chapters . . . and for which I've provided references already.
If I ever had a student struggling with such a simple, introductory concept, and they couldn't grasp it after weeks of tutoring, I'd honestly just recommend that they Q drop the class and take something other than logic.
A student not understanding that the variables in formal logic represent propositions is EXACTLY THE SAME as a student in algebra failing to understand that the variables represent unknown numerical values. Oops, I forgot that it is "illegal" to admit that you do not know something, according to the original poster.
Putting me on iggy doesnt stop me from calling bullshit when you post it
you are so NOT a logic teacher except in your own head, and if you are you should have been fired before you started.
you dont seem to comprehend or learn anything, not even the most simple concepts.
I have no reason to believe you didnt flunk your way through school based on the nonsense you post.
The statement A ∧ B is true if A and B are both true; otherwise, it is false.
yellow is red and green
A is red, B is green, is A^B yellow.
If A is red A true, AND if B is green B is true therefore A ^ B are true.
Conjuntions are taught right after inverters.
Doesnt get more elementary than this.
Stop dumbing down those kids by teaching them
and you never woke up from that fantasy!
well in this case we have an alleged teach who doesnt understand the material and come out here bragging about it.
Oh and of course NEVER A CITATION!
No one that comprehends logic answers a proposition with "I DONT KNOW" then spams the thread with over 300 posts trying to justify such nonsense!
If you want to advertise yourself as a logic teacher at least dont try to post such nonsequitur stupidity.
What a TOTAL BLUNDER!
Additive color is the identified subject
Even swensson explained to the yardmeat we were using a shorthand but since that is too complicated for professor of nonsense yardmeat, converting this to statements which yardmeat is whining and crying a river of tears over is ridiculously simple.
A = "The color green"
B = "The color red"
A^B is "The color yellow"
"The color yellow" is A(the color green) ^(and) B(the color red)
CE: therefore "The color yellow" is the color green
Im not saying conjunction elimination does not work, for instance:
Mary owns a hat AND coat,
CE: Therefore Mary owns a coat
CE worked perfectly!
It isn't honest failure. He also hasn't understood Swensson's conjunction regardless of how clearly or often it is stated. It is Kokopuffery, that's why.
If he let himself actually try to understand, then he would. He is deliberately misunderstanding people so he can pretend they said what they did not so he can attack lame straw men and feel superior. He tells you, Swensson and others obvious things nobody disagrees with, pretending he said something to show you up.
I don't know if it is narcism or just low self esteem or what but it isn't good faith conversation, and it became tiresome a while ago. But the topic itself could be interesting so I hope to see more conversation on it here between the rest of us aside from him and his games.
There's no reasoning with someone who thinks that colors are propositions and that it is "illegal" to not know the truth value of a proposition after they've been repeatedly corrected on such braindead nonsense. But, yes, there could be a really good topic here if we got past the semantics and constant need to explain elementary concepts. I'll look at starting one when things cool down around here. Lots of family stuff going on.
For the colour mixing example, done so Koko could best understand it if he made any actual effort to:
1: The thing is Red
2: The thing is Blue
3: Yellow is Red and Blue
4: The thing is Yellow
3 and 4 are true. The thing is Yellow.
Therefore 1 and 2 must be true by CE.
That's logically sound.
The thing is Red, not yellow is red.
The thing is also blue.
But how can something be Red, Blue and Yellow at the same time?? Doesn't make sense to Koko, so the above must be wrong?
No, the logic is sound. The problem stems from the proposition we granted in 3. Is Yellow actually red and blue? Or do red and blue cease to be when yellow is formed? One could debate until the end of time if 3 is true, but if it is then by CE 1 and 2 are also true.
The pie is crust and filling example clarifies this.
Pie actually is and remains crust and filling. If I have pie, then I have crust and I have filling. That's the CE.
NOT Koko's error of saying the CE is "Pie is filling".
Pie is crust and filling. Pie isn't just crust. I need me some tasty sweet blueberries.
No koko didnt, you need to fix that short circuit you have in your keyboard one of these days!
I gave you a like anyway cuz its not often I see anyone capable of going so far into left field and laughably over the edge in a single post!
Figuring out the tru meaning of your post was really tough long hours of researching an appropriate response to your masterpiece but after all that work I found it!
But I did it! I figured it out!
Definitely a 5 gold star masterpiece!
BTW blu and red is magenta
More nonsense from the cheap seats, the logic teacher that answers a proposition with "I dont know" then 300 pages of spam trying to justify that total bullshit answer.
Im so ****ing tired of the spam from those 2.
What is an example of a proposition?
This kind of sentences are called propositions. If a proposition is true, then we say it has a truth value of "true"; if a proposition is false, its truth value is "false". For example, "Grass is green", and "2 + 5 = 5" are propositions. The first proposition has the truth value of "true" and the second "false".
Introduction to Propositional Logic
https://www.cs.odu.edu › logic › proposition › proposition
yellow is yellow -(true)
yellow is red and green -(true)
therefore yellow is red -(false)
Grass is green -(true)
Grass is green and yellow -(true)
therefore grass is yellow -(true)
(At least my grass is both LOL)
Sorry to say they both have me on iggy, the water is simply too hot for them so I expect this foolishness to continue forever.
Now we return you patient folks to comedy central.
The only thing thats hot around here is your butts! LOL
Got the superstrawman logic teacher in a strangle hold and lovin every minute of it!
Pie is crust and filling. -(true)
Therefore pie is crust -(false)
Mary is blonde and drunk -(true)
therefore Mary is drunk -(true)
Mary is blonde and drunk and tall and skinny -(true)
Therefore Mary is skinny -(true)
I cant help myself but to let them all wallow in their own so they can call me a troll because I dont give them all the answers so they can pretend to argue logic.
Hint, yes there is a logical solution to the yellow matter.
It should be pretty clear to everyone their logic skills simply arent up to par to have such a discussion.
Just saying in advance so when they call me a troll and dishonest that you all know in advance that all their name calling is 'really' all about them coercing me to put up all the answers for them.
They think that if they goad me long enough I will give in and give them more free bees. not this time.
Do I know the answer? yes Have I known the answer all along? yes
Do they have the skill to argue the matter? No
But as an FYI yes there is an answer.
I prefer key lime myself. Of course, it doesn't violate the conjunction elimination because, in logical terms, "Pie is crust and filling" isn't conjunction as it only contains one proposition.
Isnt it awesome when the above peeps putcha on iggy and dont see the cited proofs they are wrong only a couple posts above? Propositions dont care what you know! lol
Is cheesecake pie or cake?
This does not address my point.
If "yellow is green" is A, and "yellow is red" is B, then "A AND B" is "yellow is green and yellow is red", whereas you've agreed that "yellow is green and red" is a different statement.
Your explanation is incomplete, and the bit that is missing contains errors.
Conjunction elimination states that if "A and B" is true, then we can infer that the propositions A and B are true each on their own.
You have not explained what you're using as A and what you're using as B, and you have not explained how you generated "yellow is green and red" from them. Not only have you not explained it, you have made a mistake in it (although you have explained it so poorly that it is not clear where in the process you've made the mistake).
If A is false, and B is false (as we have agreed they are), how can you argue that "A and B" is true? A conjunction is true if and only if all of its operands are true. And why on earth would you go to looking at borders between fields of colours in a jpeg when you can derive the conjunction directly in a syllogism?
1. "yellow is green" is false
2. "red is green" is false
3. The conjunction between them must also be false.
Those follow exact logical rules (and consequentially, have no problem with conjunction elimination). You picked out the wrong conjunction, which is most easily seen by the fact that you think its truth value is true, whereas the correct conjunction must in fact be false.
You haven't even managed to give your example in full. If "A and B" is true, then A is true. Your example sentence is not an example of "A and B", so it fails.
Conjunction elimination remains unchallenged.
Try it yourself. Write out what you think A is, write what you think B is, state whether you think they're true, write out what you think the conjunction is, whether its conjuncts are true, and therefore whether the conjunction is true. This should be really easily done in like 5 lines.
Tough, if you haven't constructed a good argument, then your point remains unproven. That is regardless of what my conclusion even is.
Flew's atheist is the negation of theist, which by the Law of the Excluded Middle means that it covers everyone who is not a theist, in the same way that "not going right" covers everyone who is not going right.
Nope, the negation of "go right" is "not go right". You can tell by the word "not".
In logic, negation [...] is an operation that takes a proposition to another proposition "not "
But either way, "atheist" in Flew's definition is equivalent to "simply not go right", which in fact is true for those who stay motionless. What is its negation is interesting and all, but it is beside the point.
I already let a lot of stuff slide, my posts are long enough without having to correct your grammar as well.
Besides, I don't think your rewording here is true.
Swe: People who remain motionless[...]
Koko: It is a condition of those who did something other than going right.Remaining motionless is a condition of some people who didn't go right, but not all.
I think my statement is more precise and grammatically correct.
People who remain motionless are a subset of those who did something other than going right. (And "did something other than going right" is equivalent to Flew's atheist)
It is also true that people who remain motionless are a subset of those who did something other than going left. (And "did something other than going left" is a group that haven't been given a particular name, either in Flew or in common parlance, and is in fact a distinction not a lot of people care about).
If you just would have done it once properly, that would do plenty. The fact that you have it over and over just indicates that you haven't ever managed to do it well.
Oh yes, I and I responded right away with "It seems to me, the "context" you refer to is just you adding a bunch of assumptions that aren't actually true, and that you try to avoid admitting. Write out what you get from this "context", and see if it stands up to scrutiny."
And indeed, you never provided a justification, so your post fell flat.
This is not a response to me, so I won't have read it. Either way, it suffers from the same problem, you have provided no reason to believe that Flew was using this context. Seems to me you're committing a context fallacy by assuming this context when Flew was pretty clear about his context being different.
This doesn't seem to address Flew's usage at all, nor did the post quote me.
This doesn't seem to address Flew's usage either. Flew's definition of atheist wasn't in a dictionary when Flew used it.
I answered this one with the fact that Stanford makes no mention of 420, which I have done several times and never heard anything back on. The argument has remained incomplete and proved nothing.
Not sure what part of this post you're referring to. It says nothing about Flew or contexts.
This again seems to be about what Bullivant and perhaps Draper says, not about what Flew says.
Nope, that's an assertion on your part, it is not found in Flew's or my versions. Any problems you derive from this comes from your addition, not ours.
The proposition that makes someone an atheist is "this person believes/accepts that God exists". "God exists" is a related proposition, but not the one that is relevant when assessing whether someone is an atheist. You can tell by the definition of atheist "someone who does not believe God exists".
I already responded to this post in full, you have failed to complete the arguments on several points.
Also already responded to this:
You never responded to it, so the issues remain unresolved, the argument incomplete and the conclusions unproven.
So in the end, all of these either fail to provide support for their assumptions (and therefore is not a proof, but merely a waste of time), or failed to address the issue at all.
He's faking it.
Unfortunately, he's also obsessed..
says the person with the least understanding of the material
Separate names with a comma.