Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: "futurist" <adamgolding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Sep 2005 18:32:51 -0700
sorry about that--that was the first time i've used Google Groups'
quick-reply feature, which i assumed would just quote the entire
previous message. anyway, this was a reply to Torkel Franzen's
distinction between contructive reductio and indirect proof. there is
another post which is in response to you which has all the appropriate
quotations in place.
William Elliot wrote:
> I've no idea to whom your addressing your reply nor what you're talking
> about. Removal of references often means that I don't notice a reply to
> me. Removal of essential context often means no well thought reply.
>
> I've not the time nor the inclination for the clerical
> chore of back tracking the thread to reconstruct the
> line of thought. If you want intelligent and well thought
> answers, then include the context pertinent to your reply
> and to whom your are talking.
>
> Please learn and use better math group manners as demonstrated
> by other participants of this newsgroup and as described at
> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#quote
>
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, futurist wrote:
>
> > OH i get it! constructive reductio ADDS (introduces) a tilde, and IP
> > removes (eliminates) one. they are only equally powerful if you have
> > DN (double negation).
> >
> >
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: William Elliot
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- References:
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: adamgolding
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: futurist
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: futurist
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: futurist
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: futurist
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: futurist
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: William Elliot
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- Prev by Date: Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- Next by Date: Re: Anti-diagonalist page
- Previous by thread: Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- Next by thread: Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|