Re: "Friendly Premises"

Torkel Franzen wrote:
> "George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> <unsnip>
> > > 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 "There is no concept of
> > > 'self-proving procedure' in logic" is equivalent to "There is
> > > no concept of 'proof' in logic."
> </us>
>
> Is "the concepts of 'self-proving procedure' and 'proof' refer to
> the same things" another way of saying "all self-proving procedures
> are proofs and all proofs are self-proving procedures"?

It looks to me like Mr. Shobe was saying "all"; but you can interpret
his statement as well as I can:

"In other words, a "self-proving procedure" is nothing other than a
proof."

However, the equivalence follows no matter how one quantifies: if some
but not all Fs were Gs and vice versa, "There are no Fs" and "There are
no Gs" would still have the same truth value.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... >> I am pointing out that, if Mr. Shobe is correct that the ... the same things" another way of saying "all self-proving procedures ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... I am pointing out that, if Mr. Shobe is correct that the ... > concepts of 'self-proving procedure' and 'proof' refer to the same ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... >> I am pointing out that, if Mr. Shobe is correct that the ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... I am pointing out that, if Mr. Shobe is correct that the ... I think you're really eagerly affirming that there is no such ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... Which I tentatively suggest would yield: ... You were pointing out, then that if all self-proving procedures are ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.logic)