Re: An argument against modus ponens


THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between an axiom and a rule of inference in this
framework!  An axiom is a sentence in the language under
consideration!

On Sep 21, 10:39 am, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't believe that for a moment.

It remains true whether you believe it or not.
These are not things you get to argue. Here I am reporting things
FROM TEXTBOOKS, things shared BY THE WIDE community.
It IS NOT like one day, we will both present our competing views on
this
and a panel of experts will decide. The experts have ALREADY decided.
I'm just reporting what they said, to you who are ignorant of it.

Not least because I have to imagine a
'language' that is in place before its sentences.

NO, YOU DON'T. NOTHING I said above requires THAT.
The language simply IS the WHOLE set of sentences under consideration.
The axioms are simply SOME of those sentences. You COULD have a
theory
where every sentence in the language was an axiom, but that is the
INCONSISTENT
theory, which is simply worthless.


A rule of inference is from a completely PRIOR plane!  It is a
FUNCTION!

Great. So a rule of inference makes a language,

NO, dumbass, IT DOESN'T. A SIGNATURE and a GRAMMAR or some other
means
of TELLING WHICH STRINGS ARE IN AND WHICH ARE OUT make a language.
A formal language is just a set of strings.

and then something you haven't mentioned makes
sentences (axioms) for the language.

If you don't know the definition of a first-order language then you
should
just go look it up, MORON. Your time-line here is totally bull*** in
any case.
Your capacity TO READ is very limited as well. I wouldn't be so angry
about
your telling all these lies if you weren't claiming that *I* said
these things.
I have never said anything of the kind. You just can't read English.

If you are going to explain something, do it properly.

Bitch, PLEASE: THE EXPLANATIONS ARE IN THE TEXTBOOKS.
The explanations are in wikipedia. If you NEED something explained to
you,
THEN ASK properly and DON'T come in here claiming TO ALREADY KNOW
***!
Because you DON'T know ***!
.

Quantcast