Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 24, 2019.
It’s not even a linguistic conjunction. He’s trying to insert a chromatic conjunction.
That would fit, given his fondness of word games in place of actual argument displayed earlier in the thread. But who knows?
Well, which is it, do they stand, or do you claim you never made them?
Either way, I have no particular interest in yellow or "what yellow IS" I have presented conjunction elimination. You presented something about some sentence about yellow being a challenge to it, and in order to do so, you'd have to establish what conjunction elimination would say, and how your challenge is any different. So far, we haven't seen a justification why your sentence has to do with conjunction elimination.
No, it's supposed to be the antecedent clause to a longer sentence, parts of which you left out. But by all means, I'm happy to elaborate.
I maintain that conjunction elimination is correct. Your supposed challenge includes no link to why it would challenge conjunction elimination. To properly challenge conjunction elimination, you'd have to show something that is a conjunction, and so far you have failed to do so, instead showing zoomed in jpegs or flashlights, as if that was what a conjunction was.
Well, I made some true statements, but which are not (and did not try to be) the definition of yellow, and you went into a long thing about "what yellow IS".
Well, I've claimed that your conjunction "yellow is a blend of green and red" is not a logical conjunction of "yellow is a blend of green" and "yellow is a blend of red".
The backup remains that a logical conjunction is true if and only if the conjuncts are true (source), i.e a logical conjunction is false if any of its conjuncts are false. However in your setup, the suggested conjunction is true even though your suggested conjunct is false, i.e. it does not fulfil the definition of a conjunction.
Besides, it is not on me to point these out, correctly identifying a conjunction is something you should include in your argument for it to be complete.
I don't think I've claimed the things you're asking me to prove here. Conjunction elimination doesn't prove that something is a conjunction, or what the truth values of a conjunction is.
Do you have a source for "use of the 'conjunction and' makes it a conjunction? Seems to me, the word "and" is a grammatical conjunction, it does not make the sentence it is a part of a conjunction, and either way, it is a grammatical conjunction, not a logical conjunction, which is what conjunction elimination talks about.
I've given the citations a bunch of times (the most direct one here, although I tend to use the information from here more). There has been no shortage of citations, I guess you just haven't understood them.
My claims remain true, you have not shown what your "challenge" has to do with the thing it's challenging.
"A AND B is true if and only if A is true and B is true, otherwise it is false." (source)
I don't see anything else in the definition that is required. Well then, what is your basis for this "process"?
No I blame you of equivocation. First you use A as simply "red" (which is true), then without justification, you pretend that A was "yellow is red blended" (which is false).
Of course, I can point this out, but more to the point, it shows that your entire argument includes logical jumps that are not justified.
I don't see a contradiction. I agree what was being said in that image, they are careful to use "add" and "produce", which I agree with, it is your addition that it has something to do with a logical conjunction that I disagree with.
You've seen the proof several times. I can give an additional angle. We agree on the logical conjunction truth table:
Conjunction elimination claims that if A AND B are true, then A is true. Since it makes a claim about A AND B being true, we are not talking about the entries where A AND B are false, but only the bottom line:
Under those conditions, we can investigate the possible values for A:
So, in the case that A AND B is true, conjunction elimination claims that A can only be true, and this is indeed the answer that the agreed upon conjunction elimination truth table tells us.
It should be noted that these are all exhaustive logical steps (i.e. we're not just looking at some special case), making this a general proof, rather than just an example.
Nope, you claim that A is "yellow is red blended" (false), what is your justification for that? A is clearly a different (true) statement.
And not the first time in this thread. Earlier on we had him mistaking different definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" and demanding people meant what they explicitly stated they did not mean.
I feel your pain! (not)
Im not the one that made a fool out of myself by claiming "I dont know" is a valid response to a valid bivalent proposition.
Then doubled down claiming to be a logic teacher only to look double foolish!
YOu were the weakest link which is why you took yerself otta here and and now operate as a hit-and-run-poster! LMAO
Type Rule of inference
Field Propositional calculus
Statement If the conjunction and is true, then is true, and B is true.
ok so you got this one: P ∧ Q ∴ P ,
What about part 2: P ∧ Q ∴ Q
Part 2 of the rule simply does not not exist for you right?
So according to you: The rule states only A is true, is that it?
( P ∧ Q ) ⊢ P , ( P ∧ Q ) ⊢ Q
In my world both A and B are true.
The two sub-rules together mean that, whenever an instance of "" appears on a line of a proof, either "" or "" can be placed on a subsequent line by itself.
What is the importance of truth table in logical reasoning?
We can use truth tables to determine if the structure of a logical argument is valid.To tell if the structure of a logical argument is valid, we first need to translate our argument into a series of logical statements written using letters and logical connectives.
Applications of Truth Tables
http://www.cwladis.com › math100 › Lecture3Logic
The truth table proves the conjunction structure is valid.
I have already used the truth to prove the conjunction is in fact valid.
When green is true AND red is true we get yellow, otherwise we get nothing.
The conjunction is TRUE
For a conjunction to be true both A and B must be true in the truth table as I have stated now how many times and you simply dont get it.
When green is true AND red is true we get yellow, otherwise we get nothing. The conjunction is logically valid.
CE pulls each true pair (in this case) of true conditions, out of the conjunction to deal with each truth seperately as I have shown time and time again, now once again by yet another citation above. Have you considered getting formal education?
Oh **** I didnt see this!
Validate by citation (meaning a link to a cite) of an example of an academically 'titled': "CE truth table" in formal logic rules LMAO
In other words the BS spin you are trying to put on a truth table to save drowning claims WILL NOT count.
Geebus this is getting pitifully comical beyond my ability to contain myself.
CE rules are used to demonstrate the entailment of a conjunction, NOT the conjunction itself, as I said countless times the 'conjunction' truth table proves a valid logical conjunction when they are both true.
Again: The CE algebra works fine, however despite that it also produces a garbage nonsense result since yellow is not red, and neither is yellow green, yellow is yellow.
IOW your version of logic (brought to you by the yardmeat, logic teacher extraordinaire) is failing you! And as usual he jumped ship leaving you stranded
Nope, I have never said that "only" A is true. Where do you get that? I haven't said it, conjunction elimination hasn't said it, none of my logic asserts, assumes or relies on it.
Haven't said that either.
What I have said is that if you have a piece of logic that relies on P, and you know the truth value of P∧Q, then you can infer the value of P from P∧Q, and use that as the input to the logic that relies on P. It does not indicate that Q is unknown or false, just that P can be used without it.
For instance, if it is raining outside my house, I should take an umbrella. I happen to know that it is raining outside my house and it's raining in Paris. Therefore (conjunction elimination), it is raining outside my house, therefore I should take an umbrella. I'm not claiming that "It's raining in Paris" is anything other than true, I'm just saying that I didn't need it for my logic, and I was justified in concluding that it was raining outside my house.
What you have given is not a proof but an example. It is perfectly possible for green and red to be true and the outcome not be yellow, for instance if blue is also true, and the outcome is white.
But as mentioned before, we can construct a situation in which the conjunction truth table is appropriate, that is not my main problem with the setup.
In this example,
1. Red = A = true,
2. Green = B = true.
3. From this you get that Yellow = [A AND B] = true,You have stated it many times, and I agree with it. Dunno what about it you think I don't get.
Conjunction elimination says that if A AND B is true, then A is true. In this example, yellow = [A AND B] = true, so conjunction elimination claims that Red = A is true. We look at what we said in line 1. above: "Red = A = true", so conjunction elimination gave us the correct answer. This supports conjunction elimination (it's not a proof, but it's certainly not the challenge you suggested).
The result of conjunction elimination in your conjunction isn't that yellow is red, the result of conjunction elimination is that "red is true", which as you mention below is in fact correct (my marking in red):
Hm, no, my logic confirmed the truth of the matter. My logic never said that "yellow is red", only your logic has generated that failure.
Still not seeing what any of this has to do with atheism or agnosticism, or even religion at all.
not when you leave B out. LOL
yeh your own source!
Logical conjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if and only if both of its operands are true.
Seems to me your source says is logical!
Yes that is the purpose of a 'truth table'.
A truth table is where the conjunction operation takes place to prove yellow is the composite of red and green when both red is true and green is true at the same time.
Seems to me you either dont read or dont comprehend your sources.
It seems to me you dont know or understand what an inference is.
So you agree that red and green added together is yellow, but you dont agree that yellow is red and green blended together.
You dont understand the most simple grammar imaginable then?
Sure be my guest, feel free to prove yellow is not red and green blended together.
I see you've quote no part of my most recent post.
Sure it is. All statements follow directly an in full.
My source doesn't say the "use of the 'conjunction and' makes it a conjunction", neither in the red text here or elsewhere. Seems you're making things up again.
So, we're still lacking a source for that on your end.
Nope, a truth table takes only truth values, whereas you've put colours in it. A nice way to show it is that when red green and blue are all true, then "red and green" is true, but "yellow" is false.
It normally goes without saying which things are accurately described in a truth table, but since you're messing it up, we'll have to see your workings.
Also nope. I agree that mixing or blending red and green in an additive colour model gives you yellow. "Adding" red and green can give yellow, but can also give other things, like red and green checkers.
Sure I do, and I know the things you're inferring is stuff that you have added, and are not found in the original. Have you ever noticed that the failures you find only ever apply when you include a bunch of steps that nobody else agrees with?
Don't see why I would, I have never claimed that.
And a bunch of projected claims the person didn't make. We even saw him dismiss when somebody said they mean X by a word and substituted in that they must mean Y, so meant something they clearly wrote they didn't mean. That happened here with "atheist" and "agnostic", and that gets us back somewhat on topic.
Person 1: A, therefore B!
Person 2: Not necessarily, no.
Person 1: You are stupid because you think A therefore C and never B.
Person 2: I didn't say that.
Person 1: Victory! I am smart and you are dumb.
Fun times right?
Hey @Jolly Penguin !
You finally got the last word! Congratulations!
Separate names with a comma.