See what I did there?
Let's see-
A => B
Truth Table:
A B . A => B
- - . ------
T T . T
T F . F
F T . T
F F . T
.
Let A = "I do not enjoy logic"
Let B = "Logic has no value".
Assume, because you posted this, you are implying: A = F, B = F (You do enjoy logic, and logic has value.)
So, A => B becomes (False) => (False), which is True.
.
What are you doing?? My guess is something semantic.
.
The glass is half empty <=> the glass is half full.
On this thread I think it was a parody of the philosophy thread that was around earlier.
Logic is irrelevant next to the power of Angry Yelling. If you don't believe me, turn on any talk-radio station.
IS NOT!
Logic is irrelevant next to the power of Angry Yelling. If you don't believe me, turn on any talk-radio station.
My political views are superior to yours because I'm loud and can call you names. Facts need not apply.
Facts need not apply.
Facts have just as much right to work as the rest of us. I encourage facts to apply. Someday, a Fact will be President.
Facts need not apply.Facts have just as much right to work as the rest of us. I encourage facts to apply. Someday, a Fact will be President.
Not while I'm here to oppress them!
Logic is irrelevant next to the power of Angry Yelling. If you don't believe me, turn on any talk-radio station.
Logic is right humans are wrong and easily manipulated.
angry yelling <!=> being illogical. You can yell 1+1 =2 when all are elements of the field or real numbers. If yelling erally made things be wrong then making other people yell through manipulation would be how to win an argument. That should not be the case. That does sound like a meta argument strategy. Wow I am rambling on now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not while I'm here to oppress them!Facts need not apply.Facts have just as much right to work as the rest of us. I encourage facts to apply. Someday, a Fact will be President.
Oh, you tiny tyrant! Away with your java cup filled with intolerance!
Delicious, filtered, Blue Mountain... Intolerance. Yum.
|
See what I did there?Let's see-
A => B
Truth Table:
A B . A => B
- - . ------
T T . T
T F . F
F T . T
F F . TLet A = "I do not enjoy logic"
Let B = "Logic has no value".Assume, because you posted this, you are implying: A = F, B = F (You do enjoy logic, and logic has value.)
So, A => B becomes (False) => (False), which is True.
Actually, the statement is more accurately rendered as A ∧ (A => B), which implies B. If ¬A or ¬(A => B) can be proven, then the statement is false.
But really, this ignores the whole metastatement. If logic has no value, then it can't possibly be used to prove logic has no value. The "therefore" can't really exist, and so A ∧ (A => B) => ¬B.
Thus, (A ∧ (A => B)) => (A ∧ ¬B), which by the truth table above, demonstrate ¬(A => B). We have successfully shown both (A => B) and ¬(A => B), which is a false state.
False implies anything, so I have now proven you're all a bunch of poopy-heads, Deus Ex Machina is a logical argument, and I win.
Actually, the statement is more accurately rendered as A ∧ (A => B), which implies B. If ¬A or ¬(A => B) can be proven, then the statement is false.
But really, this ignores the whole metastatement. If logic has no value, then it can't possibly be used to prove logic has no value. The "therefore" can't really exist, and so A ∧ (A => B) => ¬B.
Thus, (A ∧ (A => B)) => (A ∧ ¬B), which by the truth table above, demonstrate ¬(A => B). We have successfully shown both (A => B) and ¬(A => B), which is a false state.
:: pulls out an abacus, calculator, reams of graph paper, 3 mechanical pencils with .5mm leads, and goat entrails - and begins to work the calculations furiously... ::
Right! A = 3!
BARBARIAN REMEMBER SAYING: 'THINK, THEREFORE AM.'
THINGS AM THINKING AM FEELING. THUS, 'THINK THEREFORE FEEL.'
FEELINGS MAKE THINGS WEAK. LIKE CASTYS. CASTYS HAVE FEELINGS AND AM WEAK. THUS, ' FEEL THEREFORE WEAK.'
WEAK THINGS AM SMASH. THUS, ' WEAK THEREFORE DIE.'
THING THAT AM AM THINKING, LEAD TO FEELING, LEAD TO WEAKNESSES, LEAD TO DEATH. THOUGHT AM CAUSE OF DEATH.
THIS AM WHY BARBARIAN STOP THINKING YEARS AGO. AM WORKING GREAT FOR BARBARIAN. LOGIC AM FOR CHUMPS.
BARBARIAN LOGIC AM IRREFUTABLE.
...WAIT.
HAHAHAHA SILLY BARBARIAN! LEAVE GENIUS THINKING TO AM WIZURD!
...WAIT.
BARBARIAN REMEMBER SAYING: 'THINK, THEREFORE AM.'
...WAIT.
Barbarians are clever, and this is why they don't immediately die in combat.
I think you mean KING KONG whenever you say BARBARIAN.
Please make the correction.
See what I did there?Let's see-
A => B
Truth Table:
A B . A => B
- - . ------
T T . T
T F . F
F T . T
F F . TLet A = "I do not enjoy logic"
Let B = "Logic has no value".Assume, because you posted this, you are implying: A = F, B = F (You do enjoy logic, and logic has value.)
So, A => B becomes (False) => (False), which is True.
Actually, the statement is more accurately rendered as A ∧ (A => B), which implies B. If ¬A or ¬(A => B) can be proven, then the statement is false.
But really, this ignores the whole metastatement. If logic has no value, then it can't possibly be used to prove logic has no value. The "therefore" can't really exist, and so A ∧ (A => B) => ¬B.
Thus, (A ∧ (A => B)) => (A ∧ ¬B), which by the truth table above, demonstrate ¬(A => B). We have successfully shown both (A => B) and ¬(A => B), which is a false state.
False implies anything, so I have now proven you're all a bunch of poopy-heads, Deus Ex Machina is a logical argument, and I win.
This is exactly the discussion I was trying to stimulate into existence.
But I was really hoping it would come from the OP. You have done his work for him
I hope you got paid for it.
BARBARIAN REMEMBER SAYING: 'THINK, THEREFORE AM.'
...WAIT.Barbarians are clever, and this is why they don't immediately die in combat.
I think you mean KING KONG whenever you say BARBARIAN.
Please make the correction.
BEING CLEVER AND THINKING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. BARBARIAN ASPIRE TO ONLY DO FIRST, AVOID LATTER.
Unfortunately logic is useless in the persuasion of the irrational. Even talking slowly doesn't help. :P
Doesn't matter. I already proved I won.This is exactly the discussion I was trying to stimulate into existence.
But I was really hoping it would come from the OP. You have done his work for him
I hope you got paid for it.
Actually, I won. Because I induced you into doing the work.
You are my puppet.
.
The glass is half empty <=> the glass is half full.
On this thread I think it was a parody of the philosophy thread that was around earlier.
[/John McLaughlin] Within a standard planetary atmosphere, the glass is half-filled with air, so it remains completely full.
{goes back to using Google Earth and phrenology of Dan Brown to find the sekrit headquarters of the dreaded Artic Fnord Penguins.}
See what I did there?Let's see-
A => B
Truth Table:
A B . A => B
- - . ------
T T . T
T F . F
F T . T
F F . TLet A = "I do not enjoy logic"
Let B = "Logic has no value".Assume, because you posted this, you are implying: A = F, B = F (You do enjoy logic, and logic has value.)
So, A => B becomes (False) => (False), which is True.
Actually, the statement is more accurately rendered as A ∧ (A => B), which implies B. If ¬A or ¬(A => B) can be proven, then the statement is false.
But really, this ignores the whole metastatement. If logic has no value, then it can't possibly be used to prove logic has no value. The "therefore" can't really exist, and so A ∧ (A => B) => ¬B.
Thus, (A ∧ (A => B)) => (A ∧ ¬B), which by the truth table above, demonstrate ¬(A => B). We have successfully shown both (A => B) and ¬(A => B), which is a false state.
False implies anything, so I have now proven you're all a bunch of poopy-heads, Deus Ex Machina is a logical argument, and I win.
Needs more cowbell.
Needs more cowbell.
AUGH! It's one of the Walken Dead! {aims shotgun}
I wish bi-polar bears would eat them. :)
There are no more bi-polar bears, they are called Manic-Depressive bears now. Or is it the other way around....
Penguins suck!
(How do tangents work in a logic thread? Dare I guess... 'tangentially'?)
Circumstantially.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Logic? On the internets? That's just silly.
Engines move cars. Routes move traffic.
4E sucks.
An Empirical Fact if ever I heard one!
Dammit I'm going to turn this into a 4E/PF flamewar thread if it gets me banned, tarred and feathered.
