Re: implications of false axioms



george wrote:

We have passed each other going in opposite
directions.

LOL! And I thought I was really feelin' you.

It really does help to STOP trying to
win the argument and just co-operate in achieving
an understanding of what is going on.

Well alright then!

In structures where p is false,
it locally implies EVERYthing, INCLUDING ~p.

No. In structures where p is false,
it _materially_ implies
everything, including ~p.

Shut the *** up.
I HAVE a DEGREE in Philosophy from Stanford.

I have a degree in [mumble] from [mumble]!
So watch it!

[Once in an argument with a cop, he sneeringly asked me
where I got my law degree. I said I didn't have one,
and asked him where he got HIS law degree. So he
arrested me.]

You do NOT GET to remind ME what material implication
is. Material implication is AMONG OTHER things
the kind of implication we are BY DEFAULT ALWAYS
talking about.

I disagree. IMO, context usually determines what
is meant, both here in sci.logic and elsewhere.

If you mean something OTHER than
material implication then THAT is when you have to
use a qualifier. It should've been VERY obvious
to you that I simply MEANT "materially implies"
by "implies" there. THAT IS USUAL.

Yes, it was obvious that that's what you MEANT, though
it was not what you SAID. That _particular_ elision is,
indeed, common in discussions of logic.

In structures where p is false, it locally implies nothing
more than it implies in any other structure (when we make
the appropriate translations between structures).

SHUT UP! This is MY TERM!
I explicitly HAD to coin one BECAUSE I didn't
want some OTHER ignorant dip*** trying to tell me
what *I* was talking about!

YOU DON'T KNOW *** about "appropriate translations
between structures" in this context! NO TRANSLATIONS
between structures are RELEVANT OR NECESSARY
to this context!

I am afraid this comes down to
a disagreement on the proper
usage of the word "implies".

Hint: the COMMON usage means "materially
implies".

Too commonly, IMO.

For ANYbody to champion ANY OTHER usage
as "proper" is STUPENDOUSLY IDIOTIC.
When I say that the axioms don't imply anything
in structures where they are false, I AM OBVIOUSLY NOT
using material implication.

Yes, I've been wondering about that. What sort of implication
_are_ you using -- in *that* context?

When I say that they
imply everything, I obviously AM using material
implication. IF this confused you, YOU are the
one who needs to apologize.

I sincerely regret being as confused as I am. It
was not my intention to offend you or waste your time.
..
Can we start over again (in the moral sense)?

I am certainly not
going to feel obligated to try harder to avoid THIS
kind of misunderstanding, if that is what it is.

I am willing to take as a convention for this thread that
the term "implies" shall be taken as an abbreviation for
the term "materially implies".

For the sort of implication I am talking about, I will
use the term "real implication", unless you have a
better idea.

--
hz
.

Quantcast