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.So we agree. You used a part of logic and I used another. That is all.
Ciao
- viole
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.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
Sure lol.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.
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.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.
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.From step 5, P(x) → Q(x) is vacuously true, as P(x) is false for all x.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, that is correct for logic.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, because the truth table of implications, says that propositions of the typeHee-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.
i never did that. I never generalized logic as being covered only by classical logic, or being reducible to classical logic.
I will change my claim:
- According to classical logic, all the Jews I know are Atheists.
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
i never did that. I never generalized logic as being covered only by classical logic, or being reducible to classical logic.
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.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
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
Well can be, but that also completely invalidate your case.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.
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:@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
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?