Re: In need of the all-out revision of symbolic logic
- From: Eukie_M_SHIRAISHI <ms.eurms@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
On 4月30日, 午後6:44, ST <sara...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Or have I misunderstood something?
It is truly a grave mistake to define “p implies q” by the truth-table.
.
- References:
- In need of the all-out revision of symbolic logic
- From: Eukie_M_SHIRAISHI
- Re: In need of the all-out revision of symbolic logic
- From: sarabt1
- Re: In need of the all-out revision of symbolic logic
- From: Eukie_M_SHIRAISHI
- Re: In need of the all-out revision of symbolic logic
- From: ST
- In need of the all-out revision of symbolic logic
- Prev by Date: Re: In need of the all-out revision of symbolic logic
- Next by Date: Re: An Easy, Logical Solution to the Monty Hall Problem
- Previous by thread: Re: In need of the all-out revision of symbolic logic
- Next by thread: Re: In need of the all-out revision of symbolic logic
- Index(es):
