Looking forward to this thread

LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

I am looking forward to this thread because frankly, my philosophy is weak. And I have a hard time debating on philosophical grounds.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

I know of nobody posting as frequently in the atheist community who is as philosophically well versed as Chaoslord. He is extremely kick ass. I too am looking forward to seeing this forum developing, with the teachings and philosophies of Chaoslord.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

I've taken PHI 2010 (intro) and 2600 (ethics) but I really want to take logic, I only know the basic fallacies and I have no knowledge of mathematical logic.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Re: Looking forward to this thread

LeftofLarry wrote:
I am looking forward to this thread because frankly, my philosophy is weak. And I have a hard time debating on philosophical grounds.

Feel free to ask all the questions you want. I am here to teach...if thats what you desire.

Sapient wrote:
I know of nobody posting as frequently in the atheist community who is as philosophically well versed as Chaoslord. He is extremely kick ass. I too am looking forward to seeing this forum developing, with the teachings and philosophies of Chaoslord.

This may be going over board. I am good, but im not the best in the philosophical community.

LeftofLarry wrote:
I've taken PHI 2010 (intro) and 2600 (ethics) but I really want to take logic, I only know the basic fallacies and I have no knowledge of mathematical logic.

Mathematical logic is the one area of logic I fucking hate! LOL!

I love logic, in fact, its one of my main interests in Philosophy. However, Mathematical logic is horrible. The mathematical proofs in mathematical logic are horrible. It takes like 12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4.

However, Symbolic Logic, Modal Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Many-Valued Logics are great.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: Looking forward to this thread

Chaoslord2004 wrote:

Sapient wrote:
I know of nobody posting as frequently in the atheist community who is as philosophically well versed as Chaoslord. He is extremely kick ass. I too am looking forward to seeing this forum developing, with the teachings and philosophies of Chaoslord.

This may be going over board. I am good, but im not the best in the philosophical community.

Notice I also said "posting as frequently in the atheist community." I'll allow you to be modest for now, however once you start posting often here, you wont be able to escape your greatness as people will be bowing at your feet. Eye-wink

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Re: Looking forward to this thread

Sapient wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:

Sapient wrote:
I know of nobody posting as frequently in the atheist community who is as philosophically well versed as Chaoslord. He is extremely kick ass. I too am looking forward to seeing this forum developing, with the teachings and philosophies of Chaoslord.

This may be going over board. I am good, but im not the best in the philosophical community.

Notice I also said "posting as frequently in the atheist community." I'll allow you to be modest for now, however once you start posting often here, you wont be able to escape your greatness as people will be bowing at your feet. Eye-wink

LOL! I will be the Motley Crue of Philosophy

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Looking forward to this thread

Chaoslord2004 wrote:
I love logic, in fact, its one of my main interests in Philosophy. However, Mathematical logic is horrible. The mathematical proofs in mathematical logic are horrible. It takes like 12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4.

Well someone's gotta do it :shock:

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Re: Looking forward to this thread

Equilibrium wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:
I love logic, in fact, its one of my main interests in Philosophy. However, Mathematical logic is horrible. The mathematical proofs in mathematical logic are horrible. It takes like 12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4.

Well someone's gotta do it :shock:

True.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


hillbillyatheist
hillbillyatheist's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Re: Looking forward to this thread

Chaoslord2004 wrote:
Philosophy. However, Mathematical logic is horrible. The mathematical proofs in mathematical logic are horrible. It takes like 12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4.

:shock:

12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4!?

i can prove it in two steps.

1. get two apples.

2. get two more apples

how many do you have now?

4. this proves 2 + 2 = 4


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Re: Looking forward to this thread

hillbillyatheist wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:
Philosophy. However, Mathematical logic is horrible. The mathematical proofs in mathematical logic are horrible. It takes like 12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4.

:shock:

12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4!?

i can prove it in two steps.

1. get two apples.

2. get two more apples

how many do you have now?

4. this proves 2 + 2 = 4

I am talking about a formal proof, using the axioms of number theory. From the 7 axioms of number theory, there is a formal proof that 2 + 2 = 4.

It seems ridiculus to prove such a thing, but, if number theory can't prove such an intuitivly obvious idea, then there is something wrong with it's axioms.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


hillbillyatheist
hillbillyatheist's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Re: Looking forward to this thread

Chaoslord2004 wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:
Philosophy. However, Mathematical logic is horrible. The mathematical proofs in mathematical logic are horrible. It takes like 12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4.

:shock:

12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4!?

i can prove it in two steps.

1. get two apples.

2. get two more apples

how many do you have now?

4. this proves 2 + 2 = 4

I am talking about a formal proof, using the axioms of number theory. From the 7 axioms of number theory, there is a formal proof that 2 + 2 = 4.

It seems ridiculus to prove such a thing, but, if number theory can't prove such an intuitivly obvious idea, then there is something wrong with it's axioms.

i am very curious about this. can you explain this or give me a laymans link about this numbers theory stuff. show me the proof that two plus two is four using this numbers theory thing. i am kinda fascinated by the idea.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Re: Looking forward to this thread

hillbillyatheist wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:
Philosophy. However, Mathematical logic is horrible. The mathematical proofs in mathematical logic are horrible. It takes like 12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4.

:shock:

12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4!?

i can prove it in two steps.

1. get two apples.

2. get two more apples

how many do you have now?

4. this proves 2 + 2 = 4

I am talking about a formal proof, using the axioms of number theory. From the 7 axioms of number theory, there is a formal proof that 2 + 2 = 4.

It seems ridiculus to prove such a thing, but, if number theory can't prove such an intuitivly obvious idea, then there is something wrong with it's axioms.

i am very curious about this. can you explain this or give me a laymans link about this numbers theory stuff. show me the proof that two plus two is four using this numbers theory thing. i am kinda fascinated by the idea.

Do you have any experience with proofs of ether logic or mathematics?

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


hillbillyatheist
hillbillyatheist's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

can't say i have, though it sounds interesting.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

hillbillyatheist wrote:
can't say i have, though it sounds interesting.

If your into logic, then yes. However, they are very difficult.

A sample proof:

assumptions:

1. A ---> B
2. B ---> C

Therefore, I propose that based on 1 and 2, that: A ---> C. Can I offer a proof using only what is called natural deduction? of course!

Proof:

1. A ---> B [assumption]
2. B ---> C [assumption]
3. A [assumption for conditional proof]
4. B [Modus Ponen's on 1 and 3]
5. C [Modus Ponen's on 2 and 4]
Therefore,
6. A ---> C [Conditional proof, 3 and 5]

this is a very simple proof. Most proofs that are worth doing take many steps. Ever heard of Ferments Last Theorem? There is a whole book JUST devoted to the proof of it. Its well over a thousand steps.

However, thats mathematical logic. I am more interested in Philosophical Logic.

Are you familiar with natural deduction? Natural Deduction is pretty much what Symbolic Logic is based off of. It consists of several rules of inference and one axioms. The axiom, is simply: If A is true...then A is true. What an illuminating axiom eh? LOL!

Other systems of logic, use more axioms. Propositional logic uses three axioms:

P ---> (Q ---> P)
(p ---> (S ---> Q)) ---> ((P ---> S) ^ (P ---> Q))
(P --->Q) ---> (~Q ---> ~P)

a formal proof then, would be ether an instance of one of these axioms or would follow from two previous axioms by means of modus ponens.

questions?

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


hillbillyatheist
hillbillyatheist's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

Chaoslord2004 wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
can't say i have, though it sounds interesting.

If your into logic, then yes. However, they are very difficult.

A sample proof:

assumptions:

1. A ---> B
2. B ---> C

Therefore, I propose that based on 1 and 2, that: A ---> C. Can I offer a proof using only what is called natural deduction? of course!

Proof:

1. A ---> B [assumption]
2. B ---> C [assumption]
3. A [assumption for conditional proof]
4. B [Modus Ponen's on 1 and 3]
5. C [Modus Ponen's on 2 and 4]
Therefore,
6. A ---> C [Conditional proof, 3 and 5]

this is a very simple proof. Most proofs that are worth doing take many steps. Ever heard of Ferments Last Theorem? There is a whole book JUST devoted to the proof of it. Its well over a thousand steps.

However, thats mathematical logic. I am more interested in Philosophical Logic.

Are you familiar with natural deduction? Natural Deduction is pretty much what Symbolic Logic is based off of. It consists of several rules of inference and one axioms. The axiom, is simply: If A is true...then A is true. What an illuminating axiom eh? LOL!

Other systems of logic, use more axioms. Propositional logic uses three axioms:

P ---> (Q ---> P)
(p ---> (S ---> Q)) ---> ((P ---> S) ^ (P ---> Q))
(P --->Q) ---> (~Q ---> ~P)

a formal proof then, would be ether an instance of one of these axioms or would follow from two previous axioms by means of modus ponens.

questions?

what's Modus Ponen's? i forgot.

wow. i don't know who in their right mind would want to do this. Laughing out loud just looking at that stuff is painful. i would like to see the proofs for 2+2=4, just so i can see what it looks like.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

hillbillyatheist wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
can't say i have, though it sounds interesting.

If your into logic, then yes. However, they are very difficult.

A sample proof:

assumptions:

1. A ---> B
2. B ---> C

Therefore, I propose that based on 1 and 2, that: A ---> C. Can I offer a proof using only what is called natural deduction? of course!

Proof:

1. A ---> B [assumption]
2. B ---> C [assumption]
3. A [assumption for conditional proof]
4. B [Modus Ponen's on 1 and 3]
5. C [Modus Ponen's on 2 and 4]
Therefore,
6. A ---> C [Conditional proof, 3 and 5]

this is a very simple proof. Most proofs that are worth doing take many steps. Ever heard of Ferments Last Theorem? There is a whole book JUST devoted to the proof of it. Its well over a thousand steps.

However, thats mathematical logic. I am more interested in Philosophical Logic.

Are you familiar with natural deduction? Natural Deduction is pretty much what Symbolic Logic is based off of. It consists of several rules of inference and one axioms. The axiom, is simply: If A is true...then A is true. What an illuminating axiom eh? LOL!

Other systems of logic, use more axioms. Propositional logic uses three axioms:

P ---> (Q ---> P)
(p ---> (S ---> Q)) ---> ((P ---> S) ^ (P ---> Q))
(P --->Q) ---> (~Q ---> ~P)

a formal proof then, would be ether an instance of one of these axioms or would follow from two previous axioms by means of modus ponens.

questions?

what's Modus Ponen's? i forgot.

wow. i don't know who in their right mind would want to do this. Laughing out loud just looking at that stuff is painful. i would like to see the proofs for 2+2=4, just so i can see what it looks like.

hahaha..I told you Chaoslord is scary..hahahahahah

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

hillbillyatheist wrote:
what's Modus Ponen's? i forgot.

If you have the conditional if P then Q and you also have P, then you can infer Q.

For instance:

P1: If its raining outside, then the ground is wet
P2: Its raining outside
therefore,
C1: the ground is wet

hillbillyatheist wrote:
wow. i don't know who in their right mind would want to do this. Laughing just looking at that stuff is painful.

Its good stuff. logic is the shit. I have my own slogan that I am going to turn into a shirt.

Ever seen those shirts that say something to the effect of "cowboys do it with their boots on"? Implying of course, sexual intercourse. For those who are familiar with logic, this one will strike them as hillarious:

"Logicians do it on a Truth Table"

hillbillyatheist wrote:
i would like to see the proofs for 2+2=4, just so i can see what it looks like.

I don't know it off the top of my head. Nor can I find it on the internet. And no, I am not going to go threw the work of proving it all over again...im a lazy bastard. Eye-wink Eye-wink

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


hillbillyatheist
hillbillyatheist's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

can't blame you for laziness, as i am guilty of this my self. Laughing out loud


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to this thread

hillbillyatheist wrote:
can't blame you for laziness, as i am guilty of this my self. :lol:

yeah, laziness is a worldwide phenomena.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions