On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:21:33 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:42:41 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > > >> >> I then examine "not A" to see whether it's universally false. If so >> >> the universal truth of "A" is demonstrated because the tautological >> >> proposition "A, not A" is exhaustive of all possibilities for truth. >> > >> >If you claim that you can prove "A" this way then you are using the law >> >of the excluded middle, which you said you did not assume to be valid.. >> >> I don't assume the law of the excluded middle to be valid in general >> expecially where compound predicates are involved. It's actually only >> valid in the one instance where single universal predicates are used. > >Then you are assuming that some limited version of the law of the >excluded middle is valid. In any case, you cannot get your desired >result without SOME assumption.
Which assumption I demonstrate the truth of tautologically whereas faith based math cannot demonstrate the truth of their assumptions syllogistically.
>> >> >As usual, I request an example of Zick's alleged assumption used to >> >> >prove itself true. >> >> >> >> Well perhaps the general claim is too obscure. >> >> >> >> >And as usual, Zick will not provide one. >> >> >> >> See the example of the reasoning involved above. The initial >> >> assumption "A" is just an assumption and does not and cannot be used >> >> to prove itself. That should go without saying. However we can >> >> recognize the fact of self contradiction in "not A" if it is present >> >> and if present we can assume "not A" is universally false from that >> >> and infer that "A" must be universally true because its tautologically >> >> exhaustively alternative is always false. >> > >> >If you claim that you can prove "A" this way then you are using the law >> >of the excluded middle, which you said you did not assume to be valid.. >> >> >> >> >> >> The fact of universal self contradiction is not necessarily obvious in >> >> examples like "not A" because there is nothing apparent in the example >> >> to indicate it. But in an example like "not not" the fact of self >> >> contradiction is obvious >> > >> > Not to me, as I have no idea what "not not" is saying that could be >> >interpreted as self contradictory. >> >> You don't see the "contradiction of contradiction" as self >> contradictory? My but you are uncommonly slow. > >I do not see double negation as anything but affirmation.
Then I suggest you get your eyes checked.
>> >The only sensible interpretation I can think of is that for every >> >proposition A, "not not" returns the proposition "not(notA))". >> >And this interpretation confounds Zick's argument. >> >> And how about the proposition "not(not)"? What does that return? > >As "not" is a logical operator, it has no meaning until it operates on >something, and like numerical negation, doubling it cancels it.
I see. So what does "not arithmetic" mean? What does "not subtraction" mean? You're an idiot.
>> >> and we infer with confidence that "not" must >> >> be absolutely and universally true because its tautological >> >> alternative "not not" is obviously and necessarily self contradictory >> >> and hence false and the tautological combination (not, "not not") >> >> exhausts all possibilities for truth. >> > >> > >> >Zick's "inference with confidence" fails to inspire me with the least >> >iota of confidence that "not not" is anything but doubletalk. >> >> All self contradiction is doubletalk. > >Certainly all ZIck's talk tends to be self contradictory doubletalk