🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:19:38 UTC No. 16437660
A => B
should not mean
"not A or B"
for such is the incel schizo formalist's veil.
it should mean: If you prove A then you can prove that this is equivalent to proving B, that there exists an argument which can show that any arbitrary proof of A can converted to a proof of B
Likewise, "there exists x such that A(x)", should mean you can construct x and prove A(x), not merely the incel schizo's "not for all x not A(x)". Indeed if " not for all x A(x)" should not be equivalent to "there exists x such that not A(x)", which is an implication only a schizoid formalist would make.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:43:22 UTC No. 16437672
Do "A or (T=>B)" and "(T=>A) or B" have the same meaning?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:57:26 UTC No. 16437691
>>16437672
ask yourself, is it common sense?
https://prl.khoury.northeastern.edu
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:07:38 UTC No. 16437699
>>16437660
who are all these people you’re quoting?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:28:50 UTC No. 16437710
>>16437691
>common sense
Sorry, that's not either of the following:
1. A proof that any proof of "A or (T=>B)" can be converted to a proof of "(T=>A) or B", and vice versa
2. A construction of a proof of "A or (T=>B)" that cannot be converted to a proof of "(T=>A) or B", or vice versa
This isn't a trick question by the way, since intuitionistic propositional logic is decidable.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:43:34 UTC No. 16437729
>>16437710
If it's not common sense then it fails the first principle of construtivist mathematics and so is schizophrenic.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:27:24 UTC No. 16437959
>>16437660
>there exists an argument which can show that any arbitrary proof of A can converted to a proof of B
ah yes that's much more natural
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:29:15 UTC No. 16437962
>>16437959
If I can prove that a black man with a huge penis exists I prove your mother has had sex
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:34:30 UTC No. 16437968
>>16437962
Demonstrate how a proof of the first can be converted to a proof of the second
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:49:31 UTC No. 16438205
>>16437672
>>16437710
They are not provably equivalent in intuitionistic logic if I'm doing the Kripke tree thing correctly.
My favorite one there being no contradiction between
~ forall x, P x ("it is not the case that all ravens are black")
and
~ exists x, ~ P x ("it is not the case that there is a raven that is not black").
You just need countably infinitely many ravens and a non-branching countably infinite tree. You have always known about the existence of all the ravens. You start out not knowing the color of any raven, and at each stage in the tree, you discover that one more raven is black. Any particular raven is eventually discovered to be black. Since you never learn that all the ravens that you know of are black, "all ravens are black" is never forced, and therefore its negation is forced everywhere. On the other hand, since every raven is eventually found to be black, for no raven is the statement that it is not black ever forced, and therefore "there is a raven that is not black" is never forced, so its negation is also forced everywhere.
Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 16:55:04 UTC No. 16439961
>>16437660
It's all perception. Perception is the universal force.
z={(x)⋛i}√|§∆, ∆§|√{i⋛(y)}
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 01:24:21 UTC No. 16442000
>>16438205
All ravens I have seen are black
There could exist a raven that is not black, but I have not seen such yet
Wait, someone just gave me a raven they painted white, does that count?
Can scientists mess with raven genes to make non black ravens?
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 01:26:01 UTC No. 16442002
>>16442000
>>16438205
In the light at angles I think in ravens you can see that oil slick like sheens of blue and purple
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 02:05:21 UTC No. 16442036