Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are back to the beginning alright where you were challenged to prove your point by constructing a conjunction telling us what yellow 'IS' like I did when I said "The color yellow is the color green and the color red blended", not constructing a strawman about TV screens and leds.

    You failed when you constructed a strawman to change the focus then expect me to give you a free pass!

    As we can see I certainly did demonstrate CE, this is a demonstration of CE:

    The color yellow is the color green and the color red blended -true
    Therefore the color yellow is the golor red blended -false

    I cant imagine what would have possessed you to claim that 'blended' is a conjunction? Certainly nothing to do with anything I claimed.

    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!


    [​IMG]


    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:

    [​IMG]


    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!

    The CE doesnt make sense, the color yellow is not the color green blended.

    Neither is the color yellow a lit green led on a tv screen.

    My grammar is flawless
    The color yellow is the color green and the color red blended
    The conversion is flawless
    A=Green
    B=Red
    A^B=Yellow
    The truth table is flawless
    A,B,A^B
    F,F,F
    F,T,F
    T,F,F
    T,T,T
    Yet the CE fails to produce a sensible result.
    The color yellow is the color green blended

    So we are back to the begining with you claiming that a grammatical conjunction is not a conjunction, that the logical conjunction is not a conjunction when in fact I am using the conjunction and in all cases which makes your claim irrational.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2022
  2. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was responding to this:
    feel free to modify the proposition such that CE works, I dont see that either. (source)​
    so I modified it into an actual conjunction. Conjunction elimination doesn't demand that it needs to work on your definition of yellow, it works on conjunctions, and the logic I provided is a correct conjunction.

    Again, conjunction elimination applies to conjunctions. If your example doesn't fit that, then it is a strawman on your end to bring in "what yellow is" at all.

    I agree that there is a difference between "what yellow is" and conjunctions, and all I am trying to show is about conjunctions, so it seems to follow that your entire tirade into yellow is beside the point.

    Nope, conjunction elimination says that if a conjunction is true, then its conjuncts is true. The second line you have here is not a conjunct of your first line, so this is not a demonstration of conjunction elimination.

    But by all means, you can provide the amount of data that would make this at least an argument. What do you think conjunction elimination says about these two sentences, what do you think is the conjunction and what do you think is the conjuncts?

    I never did. "Blended" and logical conjunctions are different. Conjunction elimination applies to conjunctions, not to "blended", that is why your yellow example (which is an example of blending) is not an example of conjunction elimination.

    I changed it into a conjunction. That is all I was asked for, all that would be relevant for this argument, and all I did. "What yellow is" doesn't have anything to do with conjunction elimination, being a correctly constructed conjunction is crucial for conjunction elimination.

    Nope, the subject is conjunction elimination. If going between the definition of yellow and logical conjunctions is a fallacy, then you committed that fallacy when you started talking about yellow.

    Sure, it is a blend of red and green, it is not a conjunction of red and green. So we're back at the point where you have to support your bringing in of yellow altogether. Of course, I called this out when you first did it, and you failed to support 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).

    [​IMG]

    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).

    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.

    I agree. Of course, conjunction elimination doesn't say that it is, so you haven't really proven anything relevant.

    In your above examples, A is something like "red", so we can use conjunction elimination to say that "red" is true, and indeed, in the table you have given, that item is true (circled in blue below):

    upload_2022-9-26_17-26-1.png
    Conjunction elimination says that "red" (on that row) is true, which it indeed is. "The 'color' yellow is green blended" isn't the correct sentence to look at. If you had (as I suggested) written out what you think A is, what you think B is and what you think A^B is, you would see that "yellow is green blended" doesn't feature anywhere in conjunction elimination.

    I agree, but it is a conjunct in a correctly constructed conjunction, which is all I need it to be.

    The truth table shows you very nicely what conjunction elimination says

    upload_2022-9-26_17-32-56.png

    If A^B is true (which it is on the lowest row, which is bolded), then A must be true. Indeed in the table, A is true, as marked in red. So, conjunction elimination has come up with the right answer.

    Your error lies in talking about "yellow is red blended", when the real A is right there in the table as true.

    I'm claiming that a conjunction is true if and only if all its conjuncts are true (source). If you find something that doesn't follow that rule, then it is not a logical conjunction.

    Not really, I was talking about conjunction elimination and didn't bring up colours other than in response to you. I have yet to see a justification from you what you think colours and colour blending has to do with conjunctions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2022
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So am I.

    I proved ce has limitations and you refuse to accept the fact.
    yellow is a blend of red and green -true
    therefore yellow is a blend of green -false

    Didnt work. you have shown no errors in my grammar, conversion, or logic,

    my position stands unchallenged.

    you seem to think these theorems are invincible with no limitation, no boundary. I proved that your logic has both. you are not happy about it.
    strawman-the 'construction' of the proposition, the use of the word 'and' is what determines its a conjunction, not the "color" or "blending" craziness you are claiming.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2022
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Conjunction elimination says that if A^B is true, then A is true. You seem to think you've provided an A^B which is true and an A which is false, which would indeed invalidate conjunction elimination (of course, you haven't labelled them A^B and A, so that's a missing piece in your proof even if you had been correct).

    Of course, your second sentence here isn't A. A and its truth value are correctly shown in this table:
    [​IMG]
    (I guess the correct phrasing of A is something like "there is some red here")

    The same truth value is found in your version of the table:
    [​IMG]

    So whenever the conjunction is true (A^B is true or "red^green" is true), then A is true, as conjunction elimination says. Your "green blended" sentence is unrelated.

    Sure I have. You have failed to provide any reason to consider "therefore yellow is a blend of green". Conjunction elimination doesn't say anything about that sentence.

    Well, I think that any limitations it has is built directly into the phrasing of the rules. For instance, conjunction elimination says "if A and B is true, then A is true", it does not say "if A and B is true, then any sentence that Kokomojojo can misinterpret it as is true".

    That is another fundamental failure that I've called you on for months.

    In logic, A[​IMG]B is true if and only if A is true and B is true. (source)​

    You seem to have mixed it up with the grammatical conjunction, which conjunction elimination has said nothing about.

    the logical conjunction and is related to, but not the same as, the grammatical conjunction (source)​

    Besides, even in grammar, a conjunction is a type of word, not the entire sentence. "Blue and green" isn't a conjunction, the word "and" is a conjunction, and plays the role of a conjunction within the phrase "blue and green". Just like "I like cheese" isn't a noun, even if "cheese" is a noun, nor is it a verb, even though "like" is a verb.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its difficult for me to understand why such a simple concept as a conjunction is so incomprehensible to you.



    I mean seriously?

    you are the one interpreting my sentence so interpretation problems are all on you unless you can show there is a problem with the grammar, conversion or logic, and you consistently fail to do so.

    CE also says if "if A and B is true, then B is true".

    Ah theres the problem, you dont understand there are 2 parts to a conjunction. I guess I gave you more credit than you deserve.

    The color yellow-(A^B) is a blend of the color red-(A) and the color green-(B) -true
    A) therefore the color yellow is a blend of the color green -false
    ^
    B) therefore the color yellow is a blend of the color red -false

    the word yellow applies to both red and green, thats what a conjunction does! (See video above) the word blend applies to both red and green, thats what a conjunction does! (See video above)

    how can this be so difficult for you?
    No matter how many reds you blend together you will not get yellow! :roflol:
    No matter how many greens you blend together you will not get yellow! :roflol:

    Mary-(A^B) is tall-(A) and fat-(B) -true
    A) therefore Mary is tall -true
    ^

    B) therefore Mary is fat -true

    CE worked great for Mary

    There are always 2 parts for a conjunction or a disjunction, I cant imagine how you can conclude there is only 1!

    Again you fail in your attempt to show there is anything wrong with my grammar, conversion, logic or whatever it is you are trying to prove. Its hard to make any sense out of the over the ever the edge swensson theories you post.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2022
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    damn it, missed the edit window 2 [or more] parts.
    **** another correction:CE also says
    "if A and B is true, then B can stand alone".
    Likewise "if A and B is true, then A can stand alone".
    (for logical expansion)

    Gbus too many typos, I need another cup a jo!

    yes that is for a 'conjunction', its proven by a truth table in this case A^B operation, not CE
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2022
  7. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see anything in that video that contradicts what I'm saying.

    I agree, I don't think I've said anything to the contrary.

    So here you claim that A is false, yet below, you claim that A is true:
    [​IMG]

    So is A true or false?
    • If A is false, then your table is wrong.
    • If A is true, then you are wrong to say that "A) therefore the color yellow is a blend of the color green -false" (of course, the sentence is correctly identified as false, you've just incorrectly labelled it as "A").
    Where do you get the idea that "the color yellow is a blend of the color green" is A, when your written out conjunction and your truth table both use an A that is true?

    I agree, I just don't think neither of these contradict conjunction elimination (since they're not conjuncts of the conjunction you're trying to use).

    If Mary is tall, and Mary is fat, then Mary is tall and fat, proving that A^B is true if and only if A is true and B is true, which makes it a valid conjunction, which also happens to be true.

    The same construction cannot be made using the "blended green" sentence (since any resulting conjunction must be false). So yeah, the Mary example fulfils the criteria for a conjunction elimination, and consequentially conjunction elimination works. The colour example doesn't, and consequentially, conjunction elimination cannot be tested with it. Conjunction elimination remains correct.

    Don't think I have concluded that there is only one. I have only concluded that you can consider one at a time. If Mary is tall and fat, and you need to be tall to ride a rollercoaster, then you can use conjunction elimination to deduce that Mary is tall, and therefore that she is allowed to ride the rollercoaster. It doesn't mean that "Mary is fat" is missing, it just means that it wasn't needed for the logic to be carried out.

    No, we're just slowly getting to it. Your problem is that you've started with an "A" that is true, but then you've tried to perform conjunction elimination with an A that is different, and indeed has a different truth value.

    Yep, so your unsupported assertion that using the word "and" is what determines a proposition being a conjunction is wrong. In fact, in logic, it is a proposition being true when its conjuncts is true that determines whether a proposition is a conjunction.

    Then please quote me in the follow-up post too, so I don't miss it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2022
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol

    grammar:


    Grammar and Logic:


    con·junct
    joined together, combined, or associated.

    noun
    noun: conjunct; plural noun: conjuncts

    1. each of two or more things which are joined or associated.
      • Logic
        each of the terms of a conjunctive proposition.

    Yep you blew it again!

    I am waiting for your citation demonstrating your unsupported opinion that proves CE is a proof that the conjunct 'values' are true!

    I am waiting for your citation demonstrating your unsupported opinion that CE is used to prove a valid conjunct operation.

    I am waiting for a citation demonstrating your unsupported opinion that proves 'and' does 'not' create a conjunction!

    I am waiting for a citation demonstrating your unsupported opinion that proves 'and' in grammar does 'not' create a logical conjunction!

    We know for a fact that if we combine red light and green light that we get yellow light, that is a proven fact, you failed to create a conjunction counter argument that worked, your results when properly reduced to 'prove yellow' came out the same results as my proposition.

    The color yellow is a blend of the color green and the color red.

    There is an answer and its crystal clear you dont know what it is, Im waiting for you to do some homework to give us a 'valid' explanation.

    you have shown 'nothing' to prove your claims outside your opinion that your 'interpretation' of the rules is correct, please post valid citations with associated proofs for your opinions.


     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2022
  9. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, you haven't shown that your "yellow is red blended" is a term in the conjunctive proposition "yellow is red and green blended", and in fact, we can show from the rules of conjunctions that it isn't.

    But then again, you never put it into your conjunction table, so I'm struggling to see why you think it is relevant at all.

    I have given it several times:
    if the conjunction A and B is true, then A is true, and B is true (source)​
    In particular, the conjunct "values" can be concluded if and only if the conjunction itself is true.

    I don't think I've said anything about any "conjunct operation", all I've talked about is conjunctions. They are proven via the definition of a conjunction (A AND B is true if and only if A is true and B is true).

    Conjunction elimination is one behaviour of conjunctions, if it is violated, we can know that the sentences we look at aren't correctly formed conjunctions. That being said, it cannot be used to show that a conjunction is valid, it can only tell us some of the ways in which a conjunction can be invalid. It seems the thing you want me to cite is something I haven't said.

    I've given it before:
    As with other notions formalized in mathematical logic, the logical conjunction and is related to, but not the same as, the grammatical conjunction and in natural languages. (source)​

    If you want to argue that anything that has the word "and" in must be a logical conjunction, then feel free to supply an argument.

    I merely pointed out the error, the gap in the logic would be there even if I hadn't. It does show that your suggestions fall short of being a proof, even if they had been correct. Just supplying two lines doesn't challenge conjunction elimination, you would have to show that your two lines correspond to what conjunction elimination is saying, and you did not.

    No, I have pointed out that in your construction of conjunction elimination, first you use A to mean "red" (true), and then you changed it to "yellow is a blend of red" (false). Not only is this an error on your part, it highlights a part of your argument that was missing even if I hadn't pointed it out.

    Nope, my propositions have all followed the definition of a conjunction, and have consequentially always followed the rules of conjunction elimination.

    Well, the explanation is still that in the start, you say A and B are some rather nebulous terms "red" and "green" which you proclaim is true, but then later, you try to contrast the conjunction with "yellow is red blended", which is a different proposition, that conjunction elimination has said nothing about.

    Conjunction elimination says that if you start with "red" and "green" being true (as you did), and you have a conjunction of "red" and "green" (as you claim you do) which is true, then you must have used the true truth value for "red" and "green", which indeed you did (underlined above). Conjunction elimination works just fine.

    I have provided the definitions of conjunction elimination, and the definition of conjunctions, those are the only items I use.

    The reference I use to determine whether I am correct about my interpretation of a logical conjunction is the definition of a logical conjunction. Your tirade into looking at blending colours on a wall instead of looking at the actual definition, I take as you admitting that you can't get your logic to work with the proper tools.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  10. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    4,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are only now realizing this? He has been doing that with everyone since the start.
     
  11. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, when he's just dodging, I can be polite about it. When he's dodging and also requesting irrelevant things, for better or for worse, the direct response is to call it out.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are claiming all these phds writing physics books are full of ****.

    [​IMG]

    "Red light and green light add together to produce yellow light."
    A) Therefore green light added together produces yellow light.
    B) Therefore green light added together produces yellow light.

    You refuse to recognize that Ared^Bgreen is IN FACT Cyellow
    We know this is a fact.

    For "Red light and green light add together to produce yellow light.":
    We could say:
    The color yellow is produced when we add the color green light and the color red light together.
    A) Therefore color yellow light is produced when we add the color red light together.
    B) Therefore the color yellow light is produced when we add the color green light together.
    Retains the identical context. 'what yellow is'

    You failed to create a proposition that states what yellow is, therefore your whole premise is bunk.
    Simply closing your eyes to reality does not prove a point.

    Clearly its a valid conjunction because when red is true and green is true yellow is true.
    In addition we know its factually true, and natural usage as you see above.

    You have provided strictly your opinions, no 'proofs' that it is not a valid conjunction, and your source proves 'my' position which invalidates yours! Just look at the american flag example and think back to where I corrected you in your attempt to change the context of the argument and claim it was legitimate. lol

    You have not produced a valid conjunction (by your interpretation of the rules) that demonstrates yellow is a blend of green and red. So are you going to email all these physics sites and inform them their lessons are not logical?
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2022
  13. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, I agree with what's written in there. What I don't agree with is your rewriting of those statements. They correctly phrase it in terms of adding colours to produce other colours, nothing about what "yellow IS" or logical conjunctions, those are additions of yours which I disagree with.

    Obviously, we run into the exact same problem again that you still haven't addressed. In your first line here, you say:
    "A) [...] green light added together produces yellow light." (which I think we agree is false)​
    But in your last line you say
    "You refuse to recognize that Ared^Bgreen is IN FACT Cyellow" (where Ared is in fact true)​
    (My colouring for emphasis)

    Clearly, "green light added together produces yellow light" isn't A. A is just "red", and conjunction elimination correctly tells us that in your actual conjunction set up, it must have been true, which in fact it is. Conjunction elimination comes to the correct conclusion.



    My premise has nothing to do with a proposition that states what yellow is. I haven't seen any reason to believe that the definition of yellow has to contain a logical conjunction, so I don't see why I would have to create a proposition that states what yellow is.

    For instance, if you blend red, green and blue, the result would be white, but "red AND green" would still be true (i.e. "red and green" can be true while "yellow" is false). Similarly, you could get yellow without blending red and green, by having just 580nm light (i.e. "red and green" can be false while "yellow" is true). So I think it makes sense that a proper description of what yellow is won't have a logical conjunction in it, or at the very least, you'd have to justify why it'd be required.

    Close enough. Well, here you admit that red (which is A) is true. So, from the fact that yellow is true, we can correctly deduce that A was true, which is all conjunction elimination was promising.

    If red is true and green is true, then yellow is true (definition of a logical conjunction)
    If yellow is true, then red is true (conjunction elimination)

    Fully consistent, no "yellow is a blend of red" red herring.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,218
    Likes Received:
    16,717
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes - surely we have to understand what is present in the electromagnetic spectrum.

    Then there are the issues of what human eyes detect and what our brains do with that data.

    But, I never do well with these color questions.
     
  15. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, you don't have to. We were trying to assess conjunction elimination, and so far, there's been no justification to believe that the colours questions would be an example of conjunction elimination.
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    virtually everything em out there is a wavelength. When you have wavelengths that are close together they combine to form a composite waveform which results in a composite color. Eθ = E10 sin ωt + E20 sin(ωt + δ) = Eθ0 sin(ωt + φ)
    Red and Green light form the composite yellow light.

    Swensson complained about me using just red and green, so I added the word blend to make him happy, now he complains about the word blend when it is in fact a totally legitimate usage.

    [​IMG]

    As you can see 100% green and 100% red makes yellow.

    I told him several times, CE is used for inference to break down the already existing truth vales determined by the truth table and its associated proofs, however he simply refuses to part from his [mis]'interpretation' of the definition of CE.

    CE simply takes the known truth values tied together by a conjunction and separates them into individual parts to the n... .

    FYI: [​IMG]

    As usual, as you can see, we take a trip into lala land with his failure to grasp the meaning(s) of what he reads.

    The CE rule uses previously determined truth values, what he is claiming is the correct usage is pure bullshit. Logical propositions are true or false based on form and function. IOW if its structure is valid its valid.

    For example: A cement brick is soft and fluffy.
    That is a perfectly valid proposition.

    Using CE we get:
    A) a cement brick is soft
    B) a cement brick is fluffy

    Proves nothing except that Swnssons interpretation is pure BS!

    CE disassembles the conjunction into its constituent parts nothing more.

    Just another Swensson rabbit hole.
    Swensson is trying to evaluate CE, not me, I already gave him correct answers several times. he thinks his [mis]'interpretation' of rule definition is gospel given to him from God.
    We are into the denial/rewind/repeat phase of his sop argument style.
    Because its a strawman argument
    I havnt given one, another strawman
    you claimed my conjunction was invalid, I challenged you to come up with a valid conjunction, you failed, and despite that you failed you stubbornly stand by it anyway.

    I have no rebuttal that can convince anyone otherwise or cure blind denial of rational thought processes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2022
  17. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I mean, if you can't provide any actual justifications, what else can I do but repeat? I could just announce that I claim victory, but if I did so when you had things to say, that'd be an empty gesture. I think the lack of responses speaks more clearly.

    I'm addressing claims of your such as
    "Not even with yardmeats A and B therefore B, which works perfectly for things reducible" (source)​
    which is directly about conjunction elimination.

    I am only discussing yellow because you asserted that it could be used to test conjunction elimination. If you can't link "what yellow IS" to conjunction elimination, then it seems your entire foray into yellow has been a deflection (which, to be fair, I think nobody was really doubting).

    If you don't think there is a reason why the definition of yellow should contain a logical conjunction, then why ask me to come up with a valid conjunction for yellow? There might not be one (or at least not a complete one), and regardless, it wouldn't help us get to the bottom of the argument.

    So now that your challenge to come up with a conjunction turned out to be irrelevant, we can get back to what is actually relevant. That is of course the challenge you have ignored a good five times or so (in different forms).

    In your conjunction, A=red=true, B=green=true from that we can deduce that A AND B=true. Conjunction elimination claims that from knowing that A AND B is true, we can deduce A=red=true, which is correct. This shows that your conjunction does not contradict conjunction elimination.

    Your tirade into A being "yellow is red blended" directly conflicts with your own definition of A as simply "red". The failures you're seeing is not of conjunction elimination, it's of you not keeping your variables straight.

    Sure, but it should be very easy for you to produce a justification for the challenges we've actually presented many times (unless of course, your ideas are simply wrong). If you've run out of rebuttals before even addressing my main points, then you don't really have a leg to stand on.
     
    WillReadmore and Jolly Penguin like this.
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup day it tis, nothing like proving you are in denial! Bravo! :applause:
    FALSE! I made no such assertion.
    Is that supposed to be an intelligible statement? :spin:
    Poison the well fallacy.
    STRAWMAN, definition is your SPIN
    My challenges stand.

    You claimed my conjunction is not a conjunction based on pure bullshit that why you cant back it up.

    You failed to cite the rule that states CE is a 'proof' for conjunction or the truth values therein, I said its a simplification inference of truth values already determined from the truth table and associated proofs and use of the 'conjunction and' makes it a conjunction FFS.

    I have repeated this many times because you are in denial of the facts.

    Do you have a citation yet? No of course not and you wont, why, because you made it up its pure bullshit.

    You made claims before you thought it through, and rather than concede you choose denial!
    yup the boolean part works. Now if that was 'ALL' that was required youd be right. Of course we all know there is much more to the process, that you insist on ignoring!
    More denial! Another FAIL!
    Blame me for for posting an undefeatable rebuttal to your nonsense.
    Nice contradiction! :applause:
    Use of blend, mix, composite, add are all typical synonymous descriptions of the same thing.

    Proving beyond a doubt you have grammar comprehension issues.
    You are the one who doesnt comprehend the process! I asked you to write a proof and we see nothing, you dont know how and are trying to bluff your way through this FFS!
    I posted valid justification for every one of my claims, you fail again.
    Because no one can reason with someone who makes **** up and is in denial.

    Your cheerleaders are speechless therefore meaningless ego props.

    You blew it when you decided to accept the yardmeat strawman teacher extraordinaires BS as your religion.

    We are all waiting for your citations and proofs.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2022
  19. Nwolfe35

    Nwolfe35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    8,399
    Likes Received:
    5,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I still have no clue how a discussion about logic has turned into a debate about colors.
     
    Mitt Ryan likes this.
  20. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    4,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody else does either, including Koko and Swenson. That's why it never ends.
     
    Injeun likes this.
  21. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nah, me neither. I didn't bring it up, I've been asking what he thinks it has to do with the subject, but I've yet to see a justification.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2022
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  22. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    4,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have been trying repeatedly to explain something simple and straightforward, and he hasn't registered what you have been saying. He either thinks or pretends (more likely) that you have been saying something else, so no actual conversation happens.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ToFFunny!

    The bird comes out of hibernation just in the niche of time to make another desperate attempt to save you from yourself! LMAO

    Playing ignorant after 5 pages of arguing about it forcing me to repeat myself incessantly only makes you look fake

    you even quoted it and now pretend you have no clue what its all about! :roflol:

    How many more times do you need everything repeated? It wont do you any good, since you are simply making **** up with your false interpretations of the rules, so now you back pedal and feign ignorance after 5 pages of arguing!

    You have not cited anything to validate prove your interpretations, I have asked repeatedly, and they have gone ignored for the last 5 pages of posts.

    Time to concede dont you think?

    Would you like the answer?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2022
  24. Nwolfe35

    Nwolfe35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    8,399
    Likes Received:
    5,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It’s not based on a LOGIC conjunction. Discussion of what color you get when you mix two other colors has ZERO to do with conjunctions within the framework of logic.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  25. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    60,582
    Likes Received:
    33,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looks like he still doesn't understand how a logical conjunction works and keeps trying to substitute in a linguistic conjunction instead, I take it.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.

Share This Page