On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference?
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference?
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
proves that the premises are the categorical propositions
required by syllogisms, and these are isomorphic to the POE
premises. The fact that the conclusion is simply copied
proves that it was "translated" correctly.
When the POE argument is corrected translated into a
syllogism and this syllogism has the non-sequitur error
that then proves the POE argument also has this same error.
Assuming that (A and ~A) are true was the mistake of the POE proof.
We could equally assume that 2 > 5, thus 2 + 1 > 5.
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference?
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
proves that the premises are the categorical propositions
required by syllogisms, and these are isomorphic to the POE
premises. The fact that the conclusion is simply copied
proves that it was "translated" correctly.
When the POE argument is corrected translated into a
syllogism and this syllogism has the non-sequitur error
that then proves the POE argument also has this same error.
Assuming that (A and ~A) are true was the mistake of the POE proof.
We could equally assume that 2 > 5, thus 2 + 1 > 5.
On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference?
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
does.
This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>>>>
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
does.
This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
Your "syllogism" has not that form.
*This part is correct*
Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms.
*This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect*
"Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we
see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
On 5/1/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>>>>>>
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>>>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
does.
This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
Your "syllogism" has not that form.
*This part is correct*
Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical
proposition contains two categorical terms.
*This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect*
"Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we
see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
Which makes it not a valid syllogism.
That doesn't make it a false statement.
LOTS of true statements/theories can't be reduced to a valid syllogism.
The ONLY reason why it is not a valid syllogism is that it
was correctly translated from the POE arguments thus proving
that the POE arguments have always been invalid despite
dictatorial fiat to the contrary.
The proof that you provided started with the dictatorial
fiat that says{A is true} AND {A is false}.
Why does no one apply the principle of non-contradiction here?
contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same
sense at the same time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>>>>
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
does.
This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
Your "syllogism" has not that form.
*This part is correct*
Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical
proposition contains two categorical terms.
*This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect*
"Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we
see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
On 5/1/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:The ONLY reason why it is not a valid syllogism is that it
On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that >>>>>>>>>>>> inference?
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >>>>>>>>>>> Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >>>>>>>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>>>>>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
does.
This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
Your "syllogism" has not that form.
*This part is correct*
Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical
proposition contains two categorical terms.
*This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect* >>>>> "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we >>>>> see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
Which makes it not a valid syllogism.
That doesn't make it a false statement.
LOTS of true statements/theories can't be reduced to a valid syllogism. >>>
was correctly translated from the POE arguments thus proving
that the POE arguments have always been invalid despite
dictatorial fiat to the contrary.
The proof that you provided started with the dictatorial
fiat that says{A is true} AND {A is false}.
Why does no one apply the principle of non-contradiction here?
contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same
sense at the same time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Nope.
Just prove you don't understand how logic works.
I guess you are admitting that everything YOU have said is also
invalid as it can't be expressed as a single syllogism.
You are just proving your stupidity.
It is true that the POE argument was correctly
translated into its equivalent syllogism.
It is true that the resulting syllogism is invalid.
It is true that the resulting syllogism is invalid because the
translation correctly carried over the lack of a common term
between the premises and conclusion in the POE argument to this
same lack in the syllogism. This proves that the POE argument
is invalid.
On 5/2/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-01 15:19:54 +0000, olcott said:
On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>>>>>>
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>>>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
does.
This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
Your "syllogism" has not that form.
*This part is correct*
Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical
proposition contains two categorical terms.
*This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect*
"Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
There is nothing incorrect in that. In every syllogism each of the
premises has one term in common with the conclusion. That this is
not true about yor "syllogism"
Only because this error already exists in the POE argument,
thus the same error is transferred to the syllogism when the POE
argument is accurately translated into the syllogism.
simply means that your "syllogism"
is not true. (Etymologically the term "syllogism" is reference to
the common words.)
By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we
see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
No, but we do see that your "syllogism" is not a syllogism.
It is the exact same invalid syllogism with the non-sequitur
as the POE argument that it was translated from.
On 5/3/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-02 13:17:24 +0000, olcott said:
On 5/2/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-01 15:19:54 +0000, olcott said:
On 5/1/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
Translated into a syllogism:
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference? >>>>>>>>>>>>
(1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument: >>>>>>>>>>> Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
(2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves >>>>>>>>>>> that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.
What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms >>>>>>>>>> of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
does.
This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
Your "syllogism" has not that form.
*This part is correct*
Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical
proposition contains two categorical terms.
*This part is incorrect only because the POE expression is incorrect* >>>>> "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion:"
There is nothing incorrect in that. In every syllogism each of the
premises has one term in common with the conclusion. That this is
not true about yor "syllogism"
Only because this error already exists in the POE argument,
thus the same error is transferred to the syllogism when the POE
argument is accurately translated into the syllogism.
simply means that your "syllogism"
is not true. (Etymologically the term "syllogism" is reference to
the common words.)
By retaining the same lack of a common term as the POE expression we >>>>> see that the POE expression has the non-sequitur error.
No, but we do see that your "syllogism" is not a syllogism.
It is the exact same invalid syllogism with the non-sequitur
as the POE argument that it was translated from.
It is an ivanlid syllogism as the conclusion does not follow by any
valid inference rule of syllogistic logic.
Only because it was correctly translated from its POE argument.
However, the conclusion
follows by classical logic. One can prove about every inferences of
the form
Premise1
Premise2
----------
Conclusion
that it is a valid inrerence of ordinary logic if
¬Premise1 ∨ ¬Premise1 ∨ Conclusion
is a tautology of propositional logic then. From this theorem follows
that your invalid "syllogism" is a valid inference of ordinary logic.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 24:33:23 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,166 |