Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Advance Logik or how to beat a university learning booklet

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default Advance Logik or how to beat a university learning booklet

    If an alleged statement is both true and false, or undefined, so neither true nor false at the same - it's only logical deducible causally, that this alleged statement fits within the definition of the logic of a statement? Can we then say that this "construct" a logical statement? If only the definition of a proposition in the logic requires that we can define something as true or false?

    now what? today I was confronted with a "university learning booklet" which do have a illogical statement as a example for a logical statement.

    and then we fight over hours and finally we asked a "expert"

    "kommt drauf an. Seit gödel wissen wir, dass eine logisches system dass auf sich selbst bezug nehmen kann ("dieser satz ist falsch" wobei falsch eine grundlegende logische eigenschaft ist) bzw. aritmetik enthält nicht gleichzeitig vollständig sein (d.h. alle mögliche tautologien des systems aus ihm ableitbar sind) und widerspruchsfrei (das also jeder ausdruck ENTWEDER wahr oder falsch sein muss). Gibt ne neue bewegung in der logik, die versucht es zu ermöglichen manche Aussagen als wahr und falsch gleichzeitig zu erlauben, aber das kriterium mit dem man aussucht welche aussagen des genau sein dürfen ohne dass das system (jetzt in einem neuen sinne) widerspruchsfreiist, wäre nicht mehr rein deduktiv aus den axiomen ableitbar. hab hier n nützlichen link: http://www.philosophybro.com/2012/06...aletheism.html"

    in basic words the "expert" gave me "Right" and only some freaks try to fix this in new-age "mailbag-monday-dialetheis"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    this was the example for a logical opinion : "Fred was talking about the dollar crisis""

    they still claim that something is a logical opinion even if there is no criteria about: do the man exist? and if he exist there is also not a criteria to clear the question do he really talking this or not because if he don't exist he also can not talk this.

    in my opinion only because of the existence of the word "Fred" can not be used as a no evidence to the existence of Fred in general.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    the proof execution via the lag of Domain of a function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_a_function causes directly Dialetheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism and this is in definition not a system of formal logic Wikipedia: "Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •