Re: "Friendly Premises"


Martin Shobe <mshobe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 31 Jul 2005 14:57:03 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
><LFinezapthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>[Snip]
>
>>3. "Self-"
>>
>>The prefex "self-" can mean anything I want it to mean among
>>all the common definitions of the prefix "self-" as long as it
>>is sufficient to describe any logic system whatsoever.
>>
>>I choose for it to mean "self-contained" in the context of a
>>"logic system," and to simply refer to any logic system
>>whatsoever that does not require input from outside that system
>>to apply any of it's rules of inference; and additionally this
>>implies that all elements needed for that application are within
>>the system.
>>
>>For instance, in a system of syllogisms composed of syllogistic
>>arguments, or in the whole system of syllogistic logic, if the
>>premises are true, then in all valid arguments the conclusions
>>must be true. Nothing from outside the system, i.e. the
>>syllogisms, (or syllogistic logic) is needed to infer that.
>>Additionally, nothing from outside the system can change it
>>without changing the system itself, and my definition including
>>"a system" precludes that one thing. Thus, "self-" in this
>>context implies a self-contained system.
>>
>>4. "Procedure".
>>
>>A procedure is a finite successive sequence of steps, also
>>sometimes described as a finite successive step-by-step process.
>>
>>That's probably obvious enough, since it only needs to apply
>>to any logic system of any kind.
>>
>>5. "Proving."
>>
>>Note: In logical argumention, the quantifiers "some" and
>>"sometimes" minimally require one case.
>>
>>Accurately condensing, but not paraphrasing, more text than I
>>care to type until further challenged, another quote from a logic
>>textbook:
>>
>>"A deduction in logic is sometimes defined as a finite successive
>>step-by-step process applying rules of a logic system to a series
>>of premises or formulas. In some of these cases where deduction
>>is so defined, the word "deduction" is used synonymously with the
>>word 'proof'. The two terms will be used interchangeably in this
>>text."
>>
>>This textbook is well-distributed. Whether it is accurate or not
>>is irrelevant. I don't need to prove that the concept occurs in
>>"correct" logic, just that it occurs in logic. Any
>>well-distributed logic textbook occurs "in logic."
>
>In other words, a "self-proving procedure" is nothing other than a
>proof.

I can't really know since I am grossly unqualified, but it
naively seems to me that if there's such a thing as a
self-proving procedure in logic, then it would be a proof, and
that the word "self" would imply a little more information than
just "proof." I only proved that the "concept" existed within
logic, just playing with words, i.e. logic.

Thanks for reading.

Larry
.

Quantcast