Re: An argument against modus ponens

The problem is 1 level lower when you have to somehow convey which of
16 binary boolean functions some string is supposed to "mean" or point
to.
But that is simply NOT A PROBLEM for MOST people; you just handwave
and
keep going.  The fact that the argument-lists for these functions are
known to
be two-element lists of truth-values (and the result is also a truth-
value) means that
ANY number of various string-representations of them WILL DO.

On Sep 21, 8:52 am, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
So now you are saying that there are lots of true and falses. Before,
you were speaking of just 'true and false'.

No, dumbass, I AM NOT saying that there are 16 trues and falses.
I said there were 16 BINARY BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS.
Do you really not know what a binary function is??
Each of the function's two arguments, AND its result, can be
ONE boolean thing, ONE bit, that is JUST true or false.
I am STILL speaking of just true and false. But in these functions,
a thing that can be true or false (like a coin that can land heads or
tails)
occurs IN THREE PLACES: as a first argument, as a second argument,
and as a resulting value. There are 16 different ways of doing THAT.
Four of them have common names; their names are /\ , \/ , -> and <->.
The other 12 do not have common standard names in widespread use,
but there have been proposals for standard names for them as well.
.