Re: Methatheory of Propositional Calculus: A Doubt

On 24 Jan 2007 02:51:58 -0800, R. Srinivasan <sradhakr@xxxxxxxxxx> said:


On Jan 24, 4:37 am, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:49:19 +0000, Alan Smaill
<sma...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

"R. Srinivasan" <sradh...@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Jan 22, 10:59 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

The non-classical connection to LauLuna's (now withdrawn) argument
is best explained as follows. In NAFL, as in intuitionistic logic,
Pv-P can be a theorem of propositional calculus if and only if
either P or -P is a theorem.

I didn't (and wouldn't ;-) write that. R. Srinivasan did.

I now get it (belatedly) -- was Alan Smail trying to be sarcastic? It
appears that neither you nor Alan Smail got the point of my post.

My comment above -- that I wouldn't have written what you wrote -- was
simply meant to reflect the fact that, because of my own lack of
expertise in the area, I rarely post anything about non-classical logic.

.

Relevant Pages