Re: "Friendly Premises"

Martin Shobe 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.

[...]

> >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."

[...]

> In other words, a "self-proving procedure" is nothing other than a
> proof.
> [Snip]
> Martin

Apparently; which makes the assertion in question equivalent to:
There is no concept of "proof" in logic.

.