Re: "Friendly Premises"

Torkel Franzen wrote:
> "George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Sorry for your misunderstanding; I should have made it clear that > >I was
> > referring to someone else's assertion.
>
> Surely you are eagerly affirming the proposition that there is no
> such thing as proof in logic?

Surely not. I am pointing out that, if Mr. Shobe is correct that the
concepts of 'self-proving procedure' and 'proof' refer to the same
things, then asserting (as you did) "There is no concept of
'self-proving procedure' in logic" is equivalent to asserting "There is
no concept of 'proof' in logic."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... concepts of 'self-proving procedure' and 'proof' refer to the same things, then asserting "There is no concept of 'self-proving procedure' in logic" is equivalent to asserting "There is no concept of 'proof' in logic." ... then asserting "there is no word 'bloem' in English" is equivalent to asserting ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... concepts of 'self-proving procedure' and 'proof' refer to the same things, then asserting "There is no concept of 'self-proving procedure' in logic" is equivalent to asserting "There is ...
    (sci.logic)