Is religion dying?

[viole]

So we agree. You used a part of logic and I used another. That is all.

looks like. And that also why I changed my claim to make it very explicit what logical framework I am using. To avoid exactly that kind of discussions.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

looks like. And that also why I changed my claim to make it very explicit what logical framework I am using. To avoid exactly that kind of discussions.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, you want to limit logic to its formal aspect. I get that. The problem is that if I go by how it is taught, it is not only taught in the formal sense.
And that is all this debate it is about:
You: For one part of logic...
Me: Yes and there are others.

That is it.

 

[viole]

I didn't get it wrong. What the AI said was true when no other conditions are given, and no other priorities are given.



Sure it is. 1 machine goes to the work bench, in 1 minute builds a machine and leaves. Then this repeats 4 more times. 5 machines take 5 minutes to build five devices sequentially and individually.



Nope, you are assuming. Read my explaination.



You are assuming that the machines can work cooperatively and simultaneously. What if there is only 1 drill press, and the drill press is needed to build the device?



No, it would take 100 minutes. But, if they can all work simultaneously, then it would take 1 minute. However, if they can work simultaneaously but they MUST work in teams, it would take 20 minutes.



There are many cases:

100 minutes is correct if the machines are working individually and sequentially.
1 minute is correct if they are all working simultaneously.
20 minutes is correct if they are working simultaneously and in must work in teams.
100 minutes is correct if the machines are working sequentially and must work in teams.

You said: 5 minutes. 5 minutes is correct if the machines can work simulatesously in groups of 20. Again, if there are 20 drill presses, and the drill press is needed for each device to be built.

The reason people should listen to me is because I have bought multiple sources repeatedly that demonstrate what I'm saying is true. I have brought actual evidence. I also wrote 2 formal proofs which are *actually* inescapable proving you are wrong. And anyone can see that beginning with "All the Jews I know are atheists" then when challenged making the confession "I don't know any Jews" indicates that the first statement is a lie.

You admitted this, when you compared your statements so-call truth with the statement:



If your statement is being compared to the above, then "All the Jews I know" is intentionally false similar to "2+2=5" and "are Jews" is intentionally false similar to "Jews are Muslims" is intentionally false.

You said something intentionally false, then confessed and corrected yourself.

Yes, a statement, a confession is true. The whole statement is true. But that doesn't magically make the original statement true.

"I said: All the Jews I know are atheists, but since I don't know any Jews, I don't *actually* know any Jews, those Jewish atheists don't exist" Is a true statement. The whole statement is true. That does not mean that "All the Jews I know are atheists" is true without the confession.

The confession indicates that the previous statement as false, and that's what makes the confession true. The true confession includes the original false statement.



Well, since I'm not doing that, it's a poor example for what I'm doing.

However, pontificating about something when you have no knowledge of it, is precisely what you are advocating in this thread. Your so-called logic asserts that everything is true about the unknown medieval Chinese theater. So, when you said "All the Jews I know are atheists", you WERE pontificating about something you have no clue about.

So, your example is hypocritical.

Sure lol.
in fact, that tool got it right at the end, when asked to think it over. Just to fail miserably, again, in an even more ridiculous way.

ChatGPT: If it takes a single machine 5 minutes to make a single device, then it would take 100 machines 5 minutes to make 100 devices. Therefore, it would take a total of 500 minutes for 100 machines to make 100 devices.

he is denying its own conclusions by jumping from 5 to 500. Which is a clear sign that this thing is nothing but a mindless pattern matcher, that makes risible conclusions, by not understanding what it says. It should be called Artificial Stupidity, as a matter of fact.

now, how can you use a tool that stupid to make a point about anything?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

the negative assertion "All the cellphones in an empty room are off [ not on ]" is true.
the positive assertion and the incoherent conjunctions are vacuously true.

If true and vacuously true were identical, then there would not be any need for the concept of a vacuous truth.

Non sequitur. i never said they are identical. I said that vacuous truths are truths, while there are truths that are non vacuous. In other words: the set of vacuous truths is a proper subset of the set of truths. And therefore, not identical.

in the same way a Lutheran Christian is still a Christian, even though Lutheran Christianity is not identical to Christianity.

therefore, another logical fallacy of yours, that invalidate your conclusions. I must have lost count

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

From step 5, P(x) → Q(x) is vacuously true, as P(x) is false for all x.

Category error. If P(x) is a set, as you defined in 1), then it makes no sense to say that a set implies something. Or that a set is false, lol. Propositions can imply something, or can be false, not sets.

therefore, this is another logical fallacy that totally destroys your derivation. Hence, your conclusions are technically irrational, and cannot be used to prove, nor disprove anything. In particular, they cannot be used to defeat my case. Which is, therefore, still unscathed.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Clearly false. and that is not what the law of contradiction says. So, you must have made that up. What is says, is that there is no x such that Q(x) and ~Q(x). And if there is no x such that P(x) is true, then there is no problem whatsoever if Q and ~Q, are both true. Since it will still be the case that there is no x such that Q(x) and ~Q(x). It should not be too difficult to see.

I got it right. You're wrong that I'm wrong.

Here is the truth table for XOR ~( ~P AND Q )

P | Q | P XOR Q
T | T | False
T | F | True
F | T | True
F | F | False

This is the law of non-contradiction.

in fact, according to classical logic, the following proposition:

if x is an even prime number bigger than two, then x is both positive and not positive. for all such x.

Hee-hee. No. You are ignoring the definition of both the word "number" and the defintion of "prime numbers". A number cannot be both positive and negative simultaneously. And there are no negative prime numbers. x cannot be both positive and not positive if x is a prime number.

The reason for this is that you are not actually working with THE empty-set. The word number has a meaning, the concept "prime number" has a meaning. Both of those defintions include elements. Anytime a set is constructed using those terms, elements are included. In this case it is polarity.

If you are accustomed to woring with simple math and algebra, then it is common to make this mistake assuming that if there are zero even prime numbers, that this is constructing the empty-set. But that's not true. The empty-set canntot have any elements or any properties other than emptiness. Imagining it as an empty-box is the most basic analogy, but it fails because it is conflating a quantity:zero with lacking the element of quantity.

The empty-set is not an empty-box, it is a box lacking a bottom. It is a bottomless-box. It's not even a box at all. This is where your oil-tank analogy failed.

Child: "Hey, what's an oil tank that can't hold any oil?"
Parent: "Stupid."
Child: "Hey, what's a glass that can't hold any water?"
Parent: "A tube."
Child: "Hey, what's a net that can't hold any fish?"
Parent: "Broken."
Child: "Hey, what's a bottomless-box?"
Parent: "ALWAYS Empty."

You see? You simply asked, what's an empty oil tank, is it still a tank? But that's not the empty-set. It's not just empty, that describes ZERO oil. Empty is not ZERO quantity. Empty means it cannot hold any oil at all. That means the oil tank, is not a tank, it's a funnel. Got it?

is perfectly true. You just have to check the truth table for the “derivation” propositions in classical logic, to see that. A little table with four possible cases for all combinations of true/false for P and the right part of the derivation.

But that doesn't work for XOR. You are using the wrong truth table. Once the word "number" is defined in the statement properly, then the statement is always false because "Positive and Not Positive" are mutually exclusive.

The only way to make this work for you is to *actually* work with the empty set. Lacking any definition, your statement looks like this:

if x is "sldkfjads;lkjasdfjkijn", then x VACUOUSLY is both positive and not positive. for all such x.

Do you see the difference? Including vacuously before the "is" accurately communicates that "is" *actually* means "isn't".

So, you omitted the word vacuously lacking precision. And you omitted the definition of number and prime number lacking more precision. If those omissions are *actually* included in the statement, sure, it's true. To be clear, the statement is NOW true. The polarity VACUOUSLY is true. The original statement was false.

It is true because no matter what number x is, then the antecedent is always false, since there is no even prime number bigger than two. And then the conclusion follows from the classical laws of derivation: if the antecedent is false, then the entire proposition is true, no matter what the right part says. It could even say: “then bachelors are married” and it will still be true. Again, because of the classical rules of propositions involving derivations. Which you should follow, if you want to play classical logic, instead of making up things.

No, it is a material conditional, not a "derivation". In order to properly derive that X is both positive and not positive, you need to define X, you need to define positive. If you want to derive that bachelors are married, you need to define both of those terms. Doing so creates a set which is never empty, not in the same way that the empty-set is empty. You are confusing quantity:zero with emptiness.

Hence, your entire point is predicated on a false proposition. Or a proposition the contradicts the rules of classical logic. And its consequences are therefore worthless. They cannot be used to prove, nor disprove anything.

No, not true. I have not violated any rules of classical logic. I have properly defined the terms and showed that vacuous truth leads to a contradiction and is not viable for any set other than THE empty set, and that is very difficult model, because every word has a definition, and these definitions include mutually exclusive elements.

and my case still stands. As it is not surprising, considering it has been derived by a straightforward application of classical logic, and cannot therefore be defeated by the same.

Sure it can, and I did. As soon as a vacuous truth is considered true, then it's negation is also considred true. Which means that anything you assert using a vacuous truth can be defeated using the same logic.

The only way out is to accept that the law of non-contradiction does not apply in these cases, finally admitting that contradictions are being considered true, and the logic you are employing, has adopted trivialism. Which is fine. It doesn't produce sound conclusions, but it's useful in certain circumstances. This just isn't one of them.

The test for usefulness should be whether it produces conclusions that are *actually* true. he way to communicate this in english would be:

In theory, if X is "asflkjsaf;kjfi" then X vacuously is both positive and negative, but I don't know if "sda;kljsadf;lk" exists.
In theory, if X is a married-bachelor, then X vacuously has blue hair, but I don't know if married bachelors exist.
In theory, All the Jews I vacuously know are atheists, but I don't know if any Jews like that exist.

See how that works? If the uncertainty is communicated, specifically that existence is unknown, then and only then are you working with THE empty-set.

 

[dybmh]

Yeah, that is correct for logic.

Only if the definitions for "number" and "prime number" are ignored / omitted from the statement.

 

[dybmh]

C’mon. My entire claim is predicated on classical logical compliance. Nothing more, nothing less. no philosophy, no ontology, no evidence, no nothing. Just strict, mechanical application of the rule starting from some premises.... no philosophy needed nor welcome.

Ummmm.... wrong again.

 

[dybmh]

so, to repeat my claim: according to classical logic, the fact that I know no Jews, implies that all the Jews I know are Atheists.

Nope, your statement is incomplete.

"the fact that I know no Jews, implies that all the Jews I VACUOUSLY know are Atheists."

You keep omitting the vacuity, the emptiness. You MUST include and declare your ignorance in order for the statement to be true. You are declaring "vacuous knowledge" aka "ignorance".

 

[dybmh]

Category error. If P(x) is a set, as you defined in 1), then it makes no sense to say that a set implies something. Or that a set is false, lol. Propositions can imply something, or can be false, not sets.

It's just a tiny error. Replace "false" with empty. This was intended and is evident from step 3 and step 5 and step 11. All of them describe P(x) as empty not false.

1. Let P(x) represent any set, and let Q(x) represent any property.
2. Per the law of non-contradiction, P(x): { Q(x) ⊻ ~Q(x) }, even if P(x) is empty.
3. Assume for contradiction the special case where P(x) is empty and a positive assertion is made about P(x) and Q(x): ¬(∃x)(P(x)) and P(x): { Q(x) is true and ~Q(x) is false }.
4. Under this assumption, P(x) implies both Q(x) and ~Q(x) vacuously.
5. Since ¬(∃x)(P(x)) is assumed, P(x) is false empty for all x.
6. From step 5, P(x) → Q(x) is vacuously true, as P(x) is false empty for all x.
7. Similarly, P(x) → ~Q(x) is vacuously true, as P(x) is false empty for all x.
8. However, by the law of non-contradiction, P(x) cannot simultaneously imply both Q(x) and ~Q(x).
9. Hence, the assumption in step 3 leads to a contradiction.
10. Therefore, the assumption ¬(∃x)(P(x)) and P(x): { Q(x) is true and ~Q(x) is false } is false.
11. In the case where P(x) is empty, any assertion P(x) → Q(x) is false because the assertion simultaneously implies P(x) → ~Q(x). This violates the law of non-contradiction.
12. For any set P(x), if it is empty, any positive assertion about a property Q(x) is always false.
13. Consequently the empty-set does not obtain any properties vacuously.

therefore, this is another logical fallacy that totally destroys your derivation. Hence, your conclusions are technically irrational, and cannot be used to prove, nor disprove anything. In particular, they cannot be used to defeat my case. Which is, therefore, still unscathed.

Nonsense, your case is a bloody mess. And making a tiny error like this is actually a good thing, because it shows that this my own original work.

 

[viole]

Hee-hee. No. You are ignoring the definition of both the word "number" and the defintion of "prime numbers". A number cannot be both positive and negative simultaneously. And there are no negative prime numbers. x cannot be both positive and not positive if x is a prime number.

Yes, because the truth table of implications, says that propositions of the type

P —> Q,

are false only when P is true and Q is false. That is, if P is false, then the proposition is true INDEPENDENTLY from Q.

as you can see, no matter what q is, if p is false, the entire proposition is true. So, if I use p = being an even prime number being larger than 2, and q= being positive and not positive, the entire proposition is true, because p is false. Which destroys your case, again.

Not accepting that, puts you outside the laws of classical logic and, as usual, invalidates all your conclusions in this area.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

i never did that. I never generalized logic as being covered only by classical logic, or being reducible to classical logic.

Never? That's not true. Of course you generalized! That's why you needed to change your claim: Post#466.

I will change my claim:

- According to classical logic, all the Jews I know are Atheists.

So yes, you have been generalizing. The entire fault in your so-called logic is generalizing.

And it's not surprising that you claim "Never" when that's not *actually* true. More generalizing and lacking precision.

 

[dybmh]

looks like. And that also why I changed my claim to make it very explicit what logical framework I am using. To avoid exactly that kind of discussions.

Ciao

- viole

Ah! There's the flip-flop.

i never did that. I never generalized logic as being covered only by classical logic, or being reducible to classical logic.

If you never generalized, then you would not have needed to correct/change the claim to avoid the confusion. If you were clear all along, no changes would be needed.

 

[viole]

Ah! There's the flip-flop.



If you never generalized, then you would not have needed to correct/change the claim to avoid the confusion. If you were clear all along, no changes would be needed.

Yes, and ai offered you to accept it with this premise. Also to save you from continuous embarassment. You did not, so we are entirely using classical logic, and its fixed rules.

well, I, at least, lol

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Yes, and ai offered you to accept it with this premise. Also to save you from continuous embarassment. You did not, so we are entirely using classical logic, and its fixed rules.

well, I, at least, lol

ciao

- viole

Why should I accept an over-generalized false statement? You have been arguing that AI cannot be trusted for accuracy, and now you are arguing that the same over-generalizing coming from you should be trusted.

Flippity-floppity.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, because the truth table of implications, says that propositions of the type

P —> Q,

are false only when P is true and Q is false. That is, if P is false, then the proposition is true INDEPENDENTLY from Q.View attachment 77980

as you can see, no matter what q is, if p is false, the entire proposition is true. So, if I use p = being an even prime number being larger than 2, and q= being positive and not positive, the entire proposition is true, because p is false. Which destroys your case, again.

Not accepting that, puts you outside the laws of classical logic and, as usual, invalidates all your conclusions in this area.

ciao

- viole

This doesn't work, because the mutually exclusive relationship is XOR, not "implication". Again, you are mistranslating. The english "All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is translated incorrectly by ignoring the definition of Jew and Atheist.

This statement is accurately translated: : P(x): { Q(x) is true and ~Q(x) is false } and ¬(∃x)(P(x)).

You are using the WRONG truth table.

If you want to construct a true statement, the best you can do is:

All the Jews I VACUOUSLY know are Atheists.

 

[dybmh]

@viole,

Please, let's put down our team jerseys, and actually talk about this.

You're saying "All the Jews I know are atheists."
I'm correctling you saying "No, All the Jews you VACUOUSLY know are atheists."

In American english, we have an expression, an idiom, for this. I'm wondering if your native langauge has the something like it?

It's called "same-difference". See that? It's a contradiction. But it's offered by the speaker when they're claim is corrected, but the diffrence is supposd to be insignificant.

The conversation usually goes like this:

Parent: "Did you clean your room?"
Child: "Yes."
Parent: "You didn't make you bed, or put your clothes away."
Child: "Same-difference."

Or

1st person: "That red car is beautiful."
2nd person: "That car is maroon."
1st person: "Same-difference."

That's what you're doing. You are ignoring the contradictory nature of what it means to vacuously-know, or vacuously-be, or a vacuous-truth. When you are challenged on it, you say, "A vacuous truth IS true, it's a variant of truth. Same-difference."

But you have not consistently made the distinction, and you rarely admit it. Because just like the rad car which is *actually* maroon, your training/programming is weak and imprecise and generalizes. That doesn't work in the real world. In the real world, there is no "same-difference".

Do you have an expression for this in your native language? Is there a "same-difference" in that language or any language which you know?

 

[viole]

This doesn't work, because the mutually exclusive relationship is XOR, not "implication". Again, you are mistranslating. The english "All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is translated incorrectly by ignoring the definition of Jew and Atheist.

Well can be, but that also completely invalidate your case.

Because, the negation of "all the Jews I know are atheists" is, according to the laws of negation of universal qualifiers, equals to "there is at least one Jew I know that is not Atheist". Another well defined rule of classical logic.

Here is a course on that -->

But it cannot possibly be the case that there is at least one Jew I know that is not Atheist, for the simple reason that I do not know any Jew, as per premise.

Therefore, the negation of "all the Jews I know are Atheists" is necessarily false. And the laws of classical logic dictate that the original, not negated claim, must then be true.

Therefore, by the simple application of two fixed rules of classical logic, I can conclude

--> Since I know no Jews, It is indeed the case that all the Jews I know are Atheists.

And there is nothing you can do against that without going out of the well defined rules of classical logic. And that is why any attempt to negate that, or to find a contradiction of that, are doomed to fail. As they systematically did in all your rebuttals.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

@viole,

Please, let's put down our team jerseys, and actually talk about this.

You're saying "All the Jews I know are atheists."
I'm correctling you saying "No, All the Jews you VACUOUSLY know are atheists."

In American english, we have an expression, an idiom, for this. I'm wondering if your native langauge has the something like it?

It's called "same-difference". See that? It's a contradiction. But it's offered by the speaker when they're claim is corrected, but the diffrence is supposd to be insignificant.

The conversation usually goes like this:

Parent: "Did you clean your room?"
Child: "Yes."
Parent: "You didn't make you bed, or put your clothes away."
Child: "Same-difference."

Or

1st person: "That red car is beautiful."
2nd person: "That car is maroon."
1st person: "Same-difference."

That's what you're doing. You are ignoring the contradictory nature of what it means to vacuously-know, or vacuously-be, or a vacuous-truth. When you are challenged on it, you say, "A vacuous truth IS true, it's a variant of truth. Same-difference."

But you have not consistently made the distinction, and you rarely admit it. Because just like the rad car which is *actually* maroon, your training/programming is weak and imprecise and generalizes. That doesn't work in the real world. In the real world, there is no "same-difference".

Do you have an expression for this in your native language? Is there a "same-difference" in that language or any language which you know?

View attachment 77983

I don't care in the slightest about the nuances of a language. I am operating within the borders of classical logic. And the conclusions are inescapable. If we all know what it means:

1) Knowing people
2) People being Jews
3) Being Atheist
4) Understanding the rule of negation for universal qualifiers

Then the result is inescapable. By a simple application of logic. Which does not give a rip of your language nuances, intuitions, philosophy, or whatever. And since I claim, as premise, uniquely the application of classical logic, your entire argument here is moot.

But if you prefer, I can say the same in German, which, probably because of Germany's long cultural history in math and logic, have no problem whatsoever with that:

Weil keinen Juden persönlich kenne, ist es so, dass Alle Juden die ich kenne, Atheisten sind.

Feel better?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Sure lol.
in fact, that tool got it right at the end, when asked to think it over. Just to fail miserably, again, in an even more ridiculous way.

I haven't read the convo between the human and the AI, so I cannot comment on how or why the AI was given the answers it did.

ChatGPT: If it takes a single machine 5 minutes to make a single device, then it would take 100 machines 5 minutes to make 100 devices. Therefore, it would take a total of 500 minutes for 100 machines to make 100 devices.

And, that's true. So, someone prompted it to make that assumption.

he is denying its own conclusions by jumping from 5 to 500. Which is a clear sign that this thing is nothing but a mindless pattern matcher, that makes risible conclusions, by not understanding what it says. It should be called Artificial Stupidity, as a matter of fact.

No, there's multiple reasons why this could occur. It's probably user-error. Asking the wrong questions, undecalred assumptions, and ignorance of the limitations of context cache.

now, how can you use a tool that stupid to make a point about anything?

Because when they are balanced against known reality, they are true. But it needs context and precision. I originally replied to this message, but had to delete it, because the AI was giving inconsistent answers, and I wanted to be sure that you o anyone could type in the same question and get the same correct answer 100% of the time.

To do this, the AI needs context.

The best results I found were asking the following:

---

Question: Hello, I have a resource management question: If it takes 5 machines in 5 minutes build 5 total devices. How long would it take for 100 machines to build 100 devices?

---

​

If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to build 5 devices, we can assume that each machine builds one device in 5 minutes. Therefore, each machine takes 5 minutes to build one device.​

​

If you have 100 machines working simultaneously, each building one device in 5 minutes, they would collectively build 100 devices in the same amount of time. Hence, it would still take 5 minutes for 100 machines to build 100 devices.​

---

I have asked it muliple times, in multiple sessions, then same question, and it always returns the same answer. Although it will use different reasoning. Some of the reasoning is better than others. But, the answer still turns out the same. Of course it's possible to get it to change it's answer, or trick it into accepting a new condition or rejecting the old ones. This is all user-error.

It's very good with facts. I challenge you to find any fault in the data it provided when comparing ZF to NF? I challenge you to find any fault in the reasons it gave to avoid claiming that the empty set obtains anything at anytime.

Anyway, I wrote my own proofs to show that I'm correct and you are wrong. The best you can claim is that the empty set "vacuously-obtains". Which is literally a contradiction. The empty-set "empty-fills"??? When something vacuously-obtains, or is vacuously-known, or vacuously-is, it means the opposite. And in order to make true statements, you MUST include vacuously otherwise you are equating true and vacuously true.

That's pretty much the end of the thread. You have lost repeatedly. What you said was false. You were lying by ommision. Then, sure, the confession is a true statement "All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews", but that doesn't mean "All the Jews I know are Atheists" is true. It's true that you don't know any Jewish-atheists. That is the proper interpretation AFTER the true confession.