The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Torkel Franzen argues
Replies: 25   Last Post: May 17, 2013 3:52 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Bill Taylor

Posts: 186
Registered: 11/17/10
Re: Torkel Franzen argues
Posted: Apr 25, 2013 2:16 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Apr 25, 1:28 pm, Newberry <> wrote:

>     (x)((x+3 < x) --> (x = x+4))          (1)
> does not look manifestly true to me. ... The same problem occurs
> at the propositional level:
>     (P & ~P) --> Q                               (2)
> is notoriously counter-intuitive. It is called PARADOX of material
> implication, and it motivated research into relevance logics.

They are only paradoxes for relevant implication.

They are not paradoxes of Boolean implication.

-- Battling Bill

** Creation science - one of the flat earth sciences?

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.