paizo.com Recent Posts in I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valuepaizo.com Recent Posts in I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no value2011-10-24T17:58:53Z2011-10-24T17:58:53ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueZombieneighbourshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#852011-10-25T08:04:53Z2011-10-25T08:04:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Studpuffin wrote:</div><blockquote> I blame penguins. Somehow, it's their fault. </blockquote><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGd7c78bfmw&feature=feedu" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">
</p>
Well they are theiving gits, so it probably is their fault</a>.</p>Studpuffin wrote:I blame penguins. Somehow, it's their fault.
Well they are theiving gits, so it probably is their fault.Zombieneighbours2011-10-25T08:04:53ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valuemeatracehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#842011-10-25T07:56:32Z2011-10-25T07:56:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gorbacz wrote:</div><blockquote> 4E sucks. </blockquote><p>An Empirical Fact if ever I heard one!
<p>Dammit I'm going to turn this into a 4E/PF flamewar thread if it gets me banned, tarred and feathered.</p>Gorbacz wrote: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.meatrace2011-10-25T07:56:32ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueHudaxhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#832011-10-25T07:04:03Z2011-10-25T07:04:03Z<p>Engines move cars. Routes move traffic.</p>Engines move cars. Routes move traffic.Hudax2011-10-25T07:04:03ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueTOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#822011-10-25T05:06:19Z2011-10-25T05:06:19Z<p>No, roads carry traffic. Engines move traffic.</p>No, roads carry traffic. Engines move traffic.TOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)2011-10-25T05:06:19ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueMothmanhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#812011-10-25T05:03:17Z2011-10-25T05:03:17Z<p>No, roads move traffic.</p>No, roads move traffic.Mothman2011-10-25T05:03:17ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueTOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#802011-10-25T03:38:04Z2011-10-25T03:38:04Z<p>Well how else do the routers move traffic if not by logic?</p>Well how else do the routers move traffic if not by logic?TOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)2011-10-25T03:38:04ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueJMD031https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#792011-10-25T02:30:19Z2011-10-25T01:11:24Z<p>Logic? On the internets? That's just silly.</p>Logic? On the internets? That's just silly.JMD0312011-10-25T01:11:24ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueJMD031https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#782011-10-25T01:08:06Z2011-10-25T01:08:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">stormraven wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Penguins suck!</p>
<p>(How do tangents work in a logic thread? Dare I guess... 'tangentially'?) </blockquote><p>Circumstantially.stormraven wrote:Penguins suck!
(How do tangents work in a logic thread? Dare I guess... 'tangentially'?)
Circumstantially.JMD0312011-10-25T01:08:06ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueJMD031https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#772011-10-25T01:05:27Z2011-10-25T01:05:27Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">stormraven wrote:</div><blockquote> I wish bi-polar bears would eat them. :) </blockquote><p>There are no more bi-polar bears, they are called Manic-Depressive bears now. Or is it the other way around....stormraven wrote: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....JMD0312011-10-25T01:05:27ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueZombie Pizza Delivery Girl (alias of Ambrosia Slaad)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#762011-10-25T01:02:13Z2011-10-25T01:02:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Hudax wrote:</div><blockquote>Needs more cowbell. </blockquote><p>AUGH! It's one of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh732tObnXo" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Walken Dead</a>! {<i>aims shotgun</i>} <b><span class=messageboard-ooc><BLAM!></span></b>Hudax wrote:Needs more cowbell.
AUGH! It's one of the Walken Dead! {aims shotgun}Zombie Pizza Delivery Girl (alias of Ambrosia Slaad)2011-10-25T01:02:13ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueHudaxhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#752011-10-25T00:46:59Z2011-10-25T00:46:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">InVinoVeritas wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Grand Magus wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Evil Lincoln wrote:</div><blockquote> See what I did there? </blockquote><p>Let's see-
<p>A => B </p>
<p>Truth Table:
<br />
A B . A => B
<br />
- - . ———
<br />
T T . T
<br />
T F . F
<br />
F T . T
<br />
F F . T</p>
<p>Let A = "I do not enjoy logic"
<br />
Let B = "Logic has no value".</p>
<p>Assume, because you posted this, you are implying: A = F, B = F (You do enjoy logic, and logic has value.)</p>
<p>So, A => B becomes (False) => (False), which is True.
<br />
</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </blockquote><p>Needs more cowbell.InVinoVeritas wrote:Grand Magus wrote: Evil Lincoln wrote: 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.
Actually, the statement is more accurately rendered as A ∧ (A => B), which implies B. If ¬A or ¬(A...Hudax2011-10-25T00:46:59ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueLouis Agresta (Contributor)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#742011-10-25T00:30:00Z2011-10-25T00:30:00Z<p>It is absolutely true there is no absolute truth.
<br />
Therefore a true athiest MUST maintain the <i>possibility</i> of god.
<br />
Therefore Pascal's wager makes sense.
<br />
Therefore there is no such thing as a rational athiest.</p>
<p>(said the rational atheist)</p>It is absolutely true there is no absolute truth.
Therefore a true athiest MUST maintain the possibility of god.
Therefore Pascal's wager makes sense.
Therefore there is no such thing as a rational athiest.
(said the rational atheist)Louis Agresta (Contributor)2011-10-25T00:30:00ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueCallous Jackhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#732011-10-25T00:15:49Z2011-10-25T00:15:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ambrosia Slaad wrote:</div><blockquote>{<i>goes back to using Google Earth and phrenology of Dan Brown to find the sekrit headquarters of the dreaded Artic Fnord Penguins.</i>} </blockquote><p>They were destroyed by the Walrus Inquisition and are now Shriners.Ambrosia Slaad wrote:{goes back to using Google Earth and phrenology of Dan Brown to find the sekrit headquarters of the dreaded Artic Fnord Penguins.}
They were destroyed by the Walrus Inquisition and are now Shriners.Callous Jack2011-10-25T00:15:49ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueAmbrosia Slaadhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#722014-12-29T19:08:20Z2011-10-24T23:53:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">doctor_wu wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The glass is half empty <=> the glass is half full.</p>
<p>On this thread I think it was a parody of the philosophy thread that was around earlier. </blockquote><p><b><span class=messageboard-bigger>"WRONG!!!"</span></b> [/<a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/279531/saturday-night-live-mclaughlin-group" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">John McLaughlin</a>] Within a standard planetary atmosphere, the glass is half-filled with air, so it remains completely full.
<p>{<i>goes back to using Google Earth and phrenology of Dan Brown to find the sekrit headquarters of the dreaded Artic Fnord Penguins.</i>}</p>doctor_wu wrote: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.
"WRONG!!!" [/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.}Ambrosia Slaad2011-10-24T23:53:23ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueGrand Magus (alias of Tensor)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#712011-10-24T22:30:48Z2011-10-24T22:30:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">InVinoVeritas wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Grand Magus wrote:</div><blockquote><p> This is exactly the discussion I was trying to stimulate into existence.</p>
<p>But I was really hoping it would come from the OP. You have done his work for him</p>
<p>I hope you got paid for it.</p>
<p></blockquote>Doesn't matter. I already proved I won. </blockquote><p>Actually, I won. Because I induced you into doing the work.
<p>You are my puppet.</p>
<p>.</p>InVinoVeritas wrote:Grand Magus wrote: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.
Doesn't matter. I already proved I won. Actually, I won. Because I induced you into doing the work. You are my puppet.
.Grand Magus (alias of Tensor)2011-10-24T22:30:48ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueLincoln Hillshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#702011-10-24T22:23:12Z2011-10-24T22:23:12Z<p>Well, good. It's about time <b>somebody</b> won <b>one</b> of these threads.</p>Well, good. It's about time somebody won one of these threads.Lincoln Hills2011-10-24T22:23:12ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valuebugleymanhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#692011-10-24T22:23:03Z2011-10-24T22:23:03Z<p>Unfortunately logic is useless in the persuasion of the irrational. Even talking slowly doesn't help. :P</p>Unfortunately logic is useless in the persuasion of the irrational. Even talking slowly doesn't help. :Pbugleyman2011-10-24T22:23:03ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueInVinoVeritas (alias of John M Baker)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#682011-10-24T21:20:53Z2011-10-24T21:20:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Grand Magus wrote:</div><blockquote><p> This is exactly the discussion I was trying to stimulate into existence.</p>
<p>But I was really hoping it would come from the OP. You have done his work for him</p>
<p>I hope you got paid for it.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Doesn't matter. I already proved I won.Grand Magus wrote: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.
Doesn't matter. I already proved I won.InVinoVeritas (alias of John M Baker)2011-10-24T21:20:53ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueAM BARBARIAN (alias of Trinam)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#672011-10-24T21:17:47Z2011-10-24T21:17:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Grand Magus wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">AM BARBARIAN wrote:</div><blockquote><p> BARBARIAN REMEMBER SAYING: 'THINK, THEREFORE AM.'
</p>
...WAIT. </blockquote><p>Barbarians are clever, and this is why they don't immediately die in combat.
<p>I think you mean KING KONG whenever you say BARBARIAN.</p>
<p>Please make the correction.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>BEING CLEVER AND THINKING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. BARBARIAN ASPIRE TO ONLY DO FIRST, AVOID LATTER.Grand Magus wrote:AM BARBARIAN wrote: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.AM BARBARIAN (alias of Trinam)2011-10-24T21:17:47ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueGrand Magus (alias of Tensor)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#662011-10-24T21:17:17Z2011-10-24T21:17:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">InVinoVeritas wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Grand Magus wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Evil Lincoln wrote:</div><blockquote> See what I did there? </blockquote><p>Let's see-
<p>A => B </p>
<p>Truth Table:
<br />
A B . A => B
<br />
- - . ———
<br />
T T . T
<br />
T F . F
<br />
F T . T
<br />
F F . T</p>
<p>Let A = "I do not enjoy logic"
<br />
Let B = "Logic has no value".</p>
<p>Assume, because you posted this, you are implying: A = F, B = F (You do enjoy logic, and logic has value.)</p>
<p>So, A => B becomes (False) => (False), which is True.
<br />
</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </blockquote><p>This is exactly the discussion I was trying to stimulate into existence.
<p>But I was really hoping it would come from the OP. You have done his work for him</p>
<p>I hope you got paid for it.</p>InVinoVeritas wrote:Grand Magus wrote: Evil Lincoln wrote: 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.
Actually, the statement is more accurately rendered as A ∧ (A => B), which implies B. If ¬A or ¬(A...Grand Magus (alias of Tensor)2011-10-24T21:17:17ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueGrand Magus (alias of Tensor)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#652011-10-24T21:15:19Z2011-10-24T21:15:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AM BARBARIAN wrote:</div><blockquote><p> BARBARIAN REMEMBER SAYING: 'THINK, THEREFORE AM.'
</p>
...WAIT. </blockquote><p>Barbarians are clever, and this is why they don't immediately die in combat.
<p>I think you mean KING KONG whenever you say BARBARIAN.</p>
<p>Please make the correction.</p>AM BARBARIAN wrote: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.Grand Magus (alias of Tensor)2011-10-24T21:15:19ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueAM WIZURD (alias of John M Baker)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#642011-10-24T21:13:36Z2011-10-24T21:13:36Z<p>HAHAHAHA SILLY BARBARIAN! LEAVE GENIUS THINKING TO AM WIZURD!</p>
<p>...WAIT.</p>HAHAHAHA SILLY BARBARIAN! LEAVE GENIUS THINKING TO AM WIZURD!
...WAIT.AM WIZURD (alias of John M Baker)2011-10-24T21:13:36ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueAM BARBARIAN (alias of Trinam)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#632011-10-24T21:11:02Z2011-10-24T21:11:02Z<p>BARBARIAN REMEMBER SAYING: 'THINK, THEREFORE AM.'</p>
<p>THINGS AM THINKING AM FEELING. THUS, 'THINK THEREFORE FEEL.'</p>
<p>FEELINGS MAKE THINGS WEAK. LIKE CASTYS. CASTYS HAVE FEELINGS AND AM WEAK. THUS, ' FEEL THEREFORE WEAK.'</p>
<p>WEAK THINGS AM SMASH. THUS, ' WEAK THEREFORE DIE.'</p>
<p>THING THAT AM AM THINKING, LEAD TO FEELING, LEAD TO WEAKNESSES, LEAD TO DEATH. THOUGHT AM CAUSE OF DEATH.</p>
<p>THIS AM WHY BARBARIAN STOP THINKING YEARS AGO. AM WORKING GREAT FOR BARBARIAN. LOGIC AM FOR CHUMPS.</p>
<p>BARBARIAN LOGIC AM IRREFUTABLE.</p>
<p>...WAIT.</p>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...AM BARBARIAN (alias of Trinam)2011-10-24T21:11:02ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valuestormravenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#622011-10-24T21:06:21Z2011-10-24T21:06:21Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">InVinoVeritas wrote:</div><blockquote><p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</blockquote><p><i>:: 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... ::</i>
<p>Right! A = 3!</p>InVinoVeritas wrote: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)...stormraven2011-10-24T21:06:21ZRe: Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: I do not enjoy logic, therefore it has no valueInVinoVeritas (alias of John M Baker)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n13v&page=2?I-do-not-enjoy-logic-therefore-it-has-no-value#612011-10-24T20:58:22Z2011-10-24T20:58:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Grand Magus wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Evil Lincoln wrote:</div><blockquote> See what I did there? </blockquote><p>Let's see-
<p>A => B </p>
<p>Truth Table:
<br />
A B . A => B
<br />
- - . ———
<br />
T T . T
<br />
T F . F
<br />
F T . T
<br />
F F . T</p>
<p>Let A = "I do not enjoy logic"
<br />
Let B = "Logic has no value".</p>
<p>Assume, because you posted this, you are implying: A = F, B = F (You do enjoy logic, and logic has value.)</p>
<p>So, A => B becomes (False) => (False), which is True.
<br />
</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>Grand Magus wrote:Evil Lincoln wrote: 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.
Actually, the statement is more accurately rendered as A ∧ (A => B), which implies B. If ¬A or ¬(A => B) can be proven,...InVinoVeritas (alias of John M Baker)2011-10-24T20:58:22Z