User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 140

  1. #81
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    you'll have to explain that in plain English to me (I'm not a maths student).

    btw "logically consistent" is not the same as formal logic. Dialectical materialism is logically consistent, but it is anti-formal logic.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  2. #82
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    you'll have to explain that in plain English to me (I'm not a maths student).

    btw "logically consistent" is not the same as formal logic. Dialectical materialism is logically consistent, but it is anti-formal logic.
    What do you mean by "formal logic"?

  3. #83
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Formal logic

    Formal logic
    Formal logic is a set of rules for making deductions that seem self evident. Syllogisms like the following occur in every day conversation.

    All humans are mortal.
    Socrates is a human.
    Therefore Socrates is mortal.

    Mathematical logic formalizes such deductions with rules precise enough to program a computer to decide if an argument is valid.
    This is facilitated by representing objects and relationships symbolically. For example we might use for the set of humans, for the set of mortal creatures and for Socrates. We use the symbolic expression `' to indicate that object is a member of set . Thus we represent `Socrates is a human' with . We use the `quantifier' to indicate that all objects satisfy some condition. For example all men are mortal can be written as . This reads that every that has the property of being human must also have the property of being mortal. Then we restate the syllogism as follows.

    Logic assumes something cannot be both true and not true. It looks only at the truth value of a proposition. It involves simple relationships between these truth values. These can be represented by truth tables as shown in Table 3.1. The only logical operations required are the three in this figure. Others such as implication represented by `' can be constructed from these three. is the same as . implies requires that either both and are true or is false.

    Determining the truth of a logical expression that contains no quantifiers (like ) is a straightforward application of simple rules. One can use a truth table to evaluate each subexpression starting with those at the root of the expression tree as shown in Table 3.2. If a logical expression contains quantifiers than we need to evaluate a logical relationship over a range of values to determine the truth of the expression. If the range is infinite then there is no general way to evaluate the expression. We can use induction3.2to prove that some statements hold for all integers but for that we need to go beyond logic to mathematics.
    Basically it has been admitted that formal logic is inaqequate when it comes to higher maths and advanced physics. But people still try to apply it to history and politics.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  4. #84
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    Formal logic



    Basically it has been admitted that formal logic is inaqequate when it comes to higher maths and advanced physics. But people still try to apply it to history and politics.
    What does its application to higher maths and physics have to do with its application to history and politics? Fallacies and the application of certain basic logics (e.g., enthymemes, syllogistic) to discussions that take place in natural language is practical reasoning. What is the problem with using practical reason?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #85
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    you'll have to explain that in plain English to me (I'm not a maths student).

    btw "logically consistent" is not the same as formal logic. Dialectical materialism is logically consistent, but it is anti-formal logic.
    The response
    lolwat? How does formal logic break down if it is not by logical inconsistencies and wtf is "anti-formal logic"?
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  6. #86
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    What does its application to higher maths and physics have to do with its application to history and politics? Fallacies and the application of certain basic logics (e.g., enthymemes, syllogistic) to discussions that take place in natural language is practical reasoning. What is the problem with using practical reason?
    I maintain one has nothing to do with the other, and tcda has yet to demonstrate otherwise.
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  7. #87
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    I love it! This thread has now officially turned into an INTP analytical breakdown fest! Thanks guys
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  8. #88
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kendoiwan View Post
    The response
    "anti-formal logic" is nothing. I just meant that dialectical materialism is opposed to formal logic.

    Formal logic can break down if we can show if osmething can be both true and untrue at the same time. However dialectical logic does not break down if we show this, because "unity of opposites" is one of the three fundamental rules of dialectical materialism (the other two being "negation of the negation" and "quantity into quality").

    So how, according to a formal logic x sometimes = -x, and sometimes not?

    @ragashree - could it be any other way?
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  9. #89
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    What does its application to higher maths and physics have to do with its application to history and politics?
    How can you arbitrarily seperate the two? If I state that something "cannot both be true and untrue at the same time", this is an absolute statement. If it is proved wrong in one field, it is proved wrong as a logical rule in general.

    I could make the argument for things that are both "true and untrue" in history, but it would be much harder to convince you, as you would say it's my "subjective opinion". However, with maths and physics, no such accusation can be made.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  10. #90
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Thank you, dear participants, for proving my point. G'night.

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] Female INTPs-What do they look like?
    By TopherRed in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 225
    Last Post: 03-04-2017, 12:48 PM
  2. Why do they keep some commandments and not others?
    By Haphazard in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 10-20-2009, 09:01 PM
  3. [ENFP] Why Do you love ENFP's?
    By littledarling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 399
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 11:00 PM
  4. TypeC nee MBTIc -- Why Do I Love Thee?
    By CzeCze in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 03:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO