Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Damn, what a screwball way to say:

A yellow tv screen has green and red lights lit

While the above is true it fails to tell us what the 'COLOR' yellow 'IS'.
It tells us about a 'TV SCREEN'
Not what yellow 'IS'.

I suppose you could say the color yellow has green and red lights lit, but then one may be in the US and the other may be in russia. lol

I already proved (several times) and is additive.

Mary 'HAS' a cheerful and happy attitude does not tell us what Mary's present psychological state of mind 'IS',
it tells us about her attitude.

Mary 'IS' Cheerful and Happy
Therefore Mary 'IS' Happy
Tells us Mary's present psychological state of mind 'IS' happy.

The color yellow 'IS' an equal blend of the color green and the color red.
Yellow 'IS' an equal blend of green and red.
Therefore yellow is an equal blend of red. CE Fails

as we can see by the above comparison there is nothing wrong with the grammar

I suppose you could try to invent more nonsense grammar, have to admit I got a good chuckle out of your attempt above.



There should be no question of doubt that the conjuncts are tru!

Again:





When we look at the truth table its crystal clear that we have demonstrated yellow is in fact green and red. The conjuncts are tru.

 

FALSE, the boolean sum of the variables tells you a minterm is true (or false).
CE is deconstruction, not construction, it merely tears down what we already know to be true.

 

Well, "A conjunction is a statement formed by adding two statements with the connector AND" (source), so if they're not statements, then what you've managed to make isn't a conjunction.

My point stands anyway though. In order to disprove conjunction elimination, you'd have to show that one of these inputs/statements/minterms are false, when in fact they are true. Your attempt to disprove it using "red is yellow" is simply a failure to identify the correct conjunct.


which it is even in your example.

In the middle bottom, you have a green "T", what do you think that corresponds to? It either corresponds to "yellow is green", at which point you've evaluated it incorrectly (since you've put T, when in fact it's false), or it corresponds to "green" in some other aspect (maybe "a green LED is on" or "we 'have' at least some green", at which point it is not the same as the "yellow is green" that you tried to use as an example of conjunction elimination.

Of course, my main criticism isn't so much that you get it wrong, it's that your explanations are so lacking that it's not clear which you mean.

I see a lot of nice colours and things, but it is yet another example of you not having shown what it has to do with conjunctions. What makes you think this is a conjunction, when the word conjunction doesn't even appear?

I agree, that's why it didn't even cross my mind to give this version, until you insisted on this particular red herring.

I agree that it doesn't tell you what the colour yellow is, it is merely an example of a correct conjunction, which is what you asked for. A conjunction is true when its conjuncts are true, I provided two statements which were true, and showed that the conjunction was true.

Of course, the entire tirade into a conjunction about yellow that is true is from the start a red herring introduced by you, if we want to resolve our disagreement correctly, we'd have to look at the definition of conjunction and see when it is satisfied. Turns out whenever it is satisfied, conjunction elimination holds (and that is in fact all that conjunction elimination claims), so conjunction elimination is valid.

No idea what this means.

Nope. What do you think constitutes proving that something is additive?

I don't see how that follows from the grammar.

If Mary is cheerful and Mary is happy, then Mary is cheerful and happy. Two conjuncts are true, and as a result the conjunction is true.

The statements "yellow is an equal blend of red" and "yellow is an equal blend of green" however are false, so "Yellow is an equal blend of red and green" cannot be the conjunction, since it is true, when the real conjunction must be false.

So your purple paragraph here contains a true (albeit slightly mangled) conjunction, your blue paragraph does not. I don't know where you get the idea that they're comparable.

Well, you tried to use "yellow is red" as a conjunct, which is false. If the conjunct is "yellow is red", then you've constructed the wrong table, since you claim it's true when it is in fact false, and if the conjunct is "there is some red" or "yellow contains red" or something like that, then that conjunct is in fact true, and can correctly be derived using conjunction elimination.

So, while I don't agree with the setup, you claim that the conjunction is true (your yellow T here). Conjunction elimination demands that the conjuncts must be true ("red" and "green" in your table). Here you argue that the conjuncts are true (or "tru"), so conjunction elimination holds.

I haven't said anything about any boolean sum. Boolean sums tend to have more to do with disjunction than conjunctions.

My logic remains:

A: When an LED screen shows yellow, the green LEDs are lit (true)
B: When an LED screen shows yellow, the red LEDs are lit (also true)
A AND B: When an LED screen shows yellow, the green LEDs are lit, and when an LED screen shows yellow, the red LEDs are lit.​

A AND B is the correct conjunction of A and B, and is true if A and B are individually true. Since A is true and B is true, the conjunction must be true, so the conjunction A AND B is true.

As a true conjunction, we can apply conjunction elimination:

A AND B: When an LED screen shows yellow, the green LEDs are lit, and when an LED screen shows yellow, the red LEDs are lit (true)
A: When an LED screen shows yellow, the green LEDs are lit​

A AND B is true, A is a conjunct of A AND B. Conjunction elimination tells us that if A AND B is true (which it is), then A must be true. So, conjunction elimination tells us that A must be true.

 

but your proposition is garbage!

again: You changed the focus from what yellow is to leds and screens. (illegal play) -nonsequitur argument

The subject matter regards describing WHAT yellow 'IS', not leds, not monitors, not if when where..

again: The color yellow 'IS' the color green and the color red blended.

The conjunct being true has nothing to do with CE

CE does NOT prove if a conjunction is true.

God is divine and omnipotent
therefore God is omnipotent

Grammar is correct,
Logical conversion is correct
CE is correct.
UNproven data, though CE works 'perfectly' for a 'correct inference'.

CE proves the INFERENCE is true NOT the truth VALUE!





When A is true and B is true A^B is true!

again: The AND operation as shown above proves the truth NOT CE!

See crayola'd example:




As Demonstrated: Since A is true and B is true the conjunction must be true!

You are totally confused again! Its about (and used for) a statement that EVALUATES to true; A=T and B=T therefore A^B=T, NOT to be confused with the AND operation proof as you are doing.

Reducing and pulling out all the fluffy garbage you added and putting it back into the context of what yellow IS your statement fails to tell us what yellow IS.

Yellow is a 'color'.
The 'color' yellow is green and red blended.

My proposition stands undefeated.

PLONK!

 

No, the focus was conjunction elimination, you changed the focus to colours being shone on surfaces. That was the original "illegal play", and I have called it out several times. Shining two different colour lights is not a logical conjunction.

Then you asked me to make a logical conjunction that had to do with yellow (even though I argued it'd be beside the point).

The example I have given is a correct logical conjunction, which is what conjunction elimination is about. If that's something different to the example you gave, then that is a problem with the example you gave.

Disagree, the subject matter is conjunction elimination. Conjunction elimination applies to logical conjunctions, and my example is an example of a logical conjunction.

Besides, the combination of green and red isn't the definition of yellow either. If you shine 550nm light (green) and 680nm light (red) onto a surface it looks yellow, but if you shine 580nm light (yellow), then you get yellow without any 550nm or 680nm light contribution. Green and red isn't what yellow "IS", it's just one way of getting it.

Sure it does:

Conjunction Elimination (&E), which allows us to restate that either conjunct in a true conjunction is true by itself
(source).​

The conjunct being true (if the conjunction is true) is the entire point of conjunction elimination.

I agree, conjunction elimination doesn't tell us whether a conjunction is true, it only shows that if A AND B is true, then we know what A is true, which is all we need.

However, the wording of conjunction elimination shows us exactly what it is it applies to, it shows that conjunction elimination applies to logical conjunctions which evaluate to true.

It shows the table for logical conjunctions, but it can be used to show conjunction elimination too. Conjunction elimination claims that whenever the conjunction is true, the conjuncts are true.
I.e. whenever your rightmost column (the conjunction) is T, the conjunct must be also be T, which we indeed see in your table:

The yellow cell, the conjunction, is true. Conjunction elimination tells us that the conjunct must be true (the red and/or green cell).



So, in a correctly set up conjunction (the table you have is an accurate representation of a conjunction, with the possible exception of the headings, which are ambiguous), conjunction elimination works correctly.

Your error here lies in talking about "red is yellow" (which is false), instead of whatever your first column in your table is (which is marked as true in the last row, although the exact definition is ambiguous).

Sure, you've picked a different set of conjuncts here. If A and B are true, then the conjunction must indeed be true (I think in fact, you may have still picked the wrong way to construct a conjunction, but at least the truth values are right this time around). So we can use conjunction elimination: From A AND B, we can derive that A is true, which is indeed true in your example (I have marked the part in red in my quote of you). So, if you construct your conjunction correctly, conjunction elimination holds.

In this example, A seems to be something like "the red light is on", or "red light is hitting the surface", as opposed to the "red is yellow" thing that you pulled out of nowhere.

Conjunction elimination applies to the logical conjunctions, i.e. the operation proofs as I am doing them. If you use it on something else, then you've disproven something other than conjunction elimination.

I agree, I'm not trying to tell you what yellow is, I'm trying to construct a conjunction. "Blended" is not a logical conjunction, so we're back on (well we never left) square one of you not having shown what your example has to do with conjunction elimination.

 

You aren't going to get any consistency out of him. He refuses to admit that the variables in logic represent true/false statements (aka propositions) even after being provided references, but he still wants to utilize truth tables . . . and can't even understand how self-contradictory that is. He never did explain what "red is true" is even supposed to mean. If he were to do so, this would all quickly show how wrong his objections to the conjunction elimination are. Which is why he won't do it.

 

Typical stupidity we see you post out here.
A and B are both variables, they can be any color, thats why we call them 'variables', like DUH
For:
A=green
B=red
A^B=yellow

So much for your 2 second wiki Phd!
Now go back to your corner and behave yourself.

 

Are we talking about colors or logic?

 

We're talking about logic. Koko is talking about colors. And failing to understand how logical variable work. And failing to use truth tables.

 

huh? clarification?

 

FALSE!
Such foolishness
Thats your strawman SPIN of what I said!

 

I don’t know what clarification you need. My question is pretty simple and straightforward.

 

Ok then my answer will be equally simple and straight forward; both

 

Yeah, the two don’t go hand in hand.

 

Yes its an adulterous relationship

 

My point is that you can discuss the rules of logic or you can discuss the physics of light and color. Trying to combine the two is not going to work.

 

How was it combined?

 

Somewhere the discussion went from logical conjunctions to what makes the color yellow. Two completely separate topics

 

Then you need to address swensson

 

He doesn't understand that the variables in logic represent true/false statements (aka propositions), despite being provided with sources. It's the equivalent of trying to debate algebra while maintaining that the variables in algebraic equations represent colors instead of numerical values. Contradicting himself, he tries appealing to truth tables . . . which involve the true/false values of propositions. A rational person can't have it both ways. The two approaches are mutually exclusive. He was never able to explain what "red is true" means. If he were, then we could talk about logic again.

 

In logic A & B have only one of two values. True or False. That’s it.

 

yep


People here require crayola,

Looks like the existence/nonexistence of green, red and yellow are identified with T and F.

When A is T and B is T A^B is T

 

What is the point of the colors??? Colors have zero to do with this. It just confuses the matter.

 

[emphasis added]
whats wrong with it, Im not confused
which "this" are you talking about?

 

This = logic
Colors have nothing to do with logic.