Re: An argument against modus ponens

george wrote:
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.

I've already written extensively on this in my first post on this thread. True and False requires P and R. "Not-P" is an unacceptable ambiguity.

Now, logic has nothing to do with values or outcomes. "Values" and "outcomes" are just about switching contexts.

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.

Let's hope they mean something.
.

Loading