Grace wrote:"This almost sounds like word salad."

Lay off, he's just a boy!

That doesn't magically turn what he said into something that actually means something. 18 is as good an age as any to actually start learning to think of how to reason and how to express reasoning, and I would even tell a 15-year old that their reasoning is invalid on account of unclarity. When I was 18, I was expected to be able to write coherently.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Grace wrote:"This almost sounds like word salad."

Lay off, he's just a boy!

That doesn't magically turn what he said into something that actually means something. 18 is as good an age as any to actually start learning to think of how to reason and how to express reasoning, and I would even tell a 15-year old that their reasoning is invalid on account of unclarity. When I was 18, I was expected to be able to write coherently.

Question 1: Can you explain the meaning of "word salad" to me?

Question 2: Can you point out what exactly you were refering to?

RationalVegan wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Grace wrote:"This almost sounds like word salad."

Lay off, he's just a boy!

That doesn't magically turn what he said into something that actually means something. 18 is as good an age as any to actually start learning to think of how to reason and how to express reasoning, and I would even tell a 15-year old that their reasoning is invalid on account of unclarity. When I was 18, I was expected to be able to write coherently.

Question 1: Can you explain the meaning of "word salad" to me?

Word salad is a term that refers to words strung together, forming a sentence-like thing that carries no meaning.

Question 2: Can you point out what exactly you were refering to?

I was referring to the lack of any clear meaning in the post I responded to. Your words were quite unclear in parts of it, especially in this part: "... that Logic is the way from A,B=>C, with => being a rational concept without actual substance but it´s actual components being somewhat represented in both A,B and C, just like in physics, where you first assume that you have some sort of field, just to then later discover that the field is much rather a component of the interacting physical objects."

Yes, there's some possible ways of interpreting it, but those ways of interpreting it don't much help either, as they don't end up forming any very meaningful coherent whole.

Okay I see thanks for your help.

I will try again.

I was refering to Syllogism.

My original question about it was: Is logic some kind of underlying natural concept or is it playing with words (Switching Socrates for Greeks to formulate that Socrates is a human)?

What I am thinking now is: The Reasoning itself(Socrates->Human) is playing with words, but it would not be possible without a "natural" connection between them("Greeks"). Therefore logic cannot be disproven to be a play with words (I was not trying to do that, I was just afraid that someone would eventually do that to me). What brought me to think this is what happened with fields like the electromagnetic one in physics:
1. You have some sort of electromagnetic field.
2. You discover that it´s speed can be related to c.
3. The "field" is actually two electrons which trade a photon.

Thank you Cali, that is the kind of sane guidance young people need when they come here to learn something.

My God! There are people here who would rather shame and humiliate others rather than share the kind of knowledge Cali has.

Under the title RationalSkepticism is "A LIFEBOAT FOR THE RATIONAL MIND..." I'd like to see some people work at making this true.

Grace wrote:Thank you Cali, that is the kind of sane guidance young people need when they come here to learn something.

My God! There are people here who would rather shame and humiliate others rather than share the kind of knowledge Cali has.

Under the title RationalSkepticism is "A LIFEBOAT FOR THE RATIONAL MIND..." I'd like to see some people work at making this true.

Unlike you, rationalvegan actually interacts with criticism and critical questions ... interacting with criticism is the sane approach.

And what is "Shhhh....! Don't tell the Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Mormons. They might try logic and corrupt it." if not an attempt to shame and humiliate? You should shut the fuck up about shaming and humiliating, the reason I play that game against you is that you so often throw the first stone at things or ideas you barely understand.

Reported!

Grace wrote:Thank you Cali, that is the kind of sane guidance young people need when they come here to learn something.

My God! There are people here who would rather shame and humiliate others rather than share the kind of knowledge Cali has.

Under the title RationalSkepticism is "A LIFEBOAT FOR THE RATIONAL MIND..." I'd like to see some people work at making this true.

This is just as bad a violation of any rules as anything you see by me in this thread.

RationalVegan wrote:Okay I see thanks for your help.

I will try again.

I was refering to Syllogism.

My original question about it was: Is logic some kind of underlying natural concept or is it playing with words (Switching Socrates for Greeks to formulate that Socrates is a human)?

You're in the mathematics forum, so you should be asking a question with at least a vague hint of mathematical content. Yours has none that I can see.

VazScep wrote:

RationalVegan wrote:Okay I see thanks for your help.

I will try again.

I was refering to Syllogism.

My original question about it was: Is logic some kind of underlying natural concept or is it playing with words (Switching Socrates for Greeks to formulate that Socrates is a human)?

You're in the mathematics forum, so you should be asking a question with at least a vague hint of mathematical content. Yours has none that I can see.

Oh it does.
In my opinion Logic has a stronger relation to mathematics than to anything else. A syllogism similiar to the one I meant is just maths:

X(Socrates) = Y(Greek)
Y(Greek) = Z(Human)
Therefore:
X(Socrates) = Z(Human)

RationalVegan wrote:Oh it does.

In my opinion Logic has a stronger relation to mathematics than to anything else.

It does. I would go so far to say that the only worthwhile discussion of logic takes place in mathematics. Still, the mathematical content of your OP is 0.

A syllogism similiar to the one I meant is just maths:

X(Socrates) = Y(Greek)
Y(Greek) = Z(Human)
Therefore:
X(Socrates) = Z(Human)

No. Socrates does not equal Greek. You'll find yourself throwing yourself into nasty word-games if you use equality like that.

Equality does not formalise "is a". Instead, "is-a" relations can be formalised with predicates (in fact, linguistically, "is a Greek" is called the predicate of the sentence "Socrates is a Greek." So you say something like:

1) Greek(Socrates)
2) Greek(x) → Human(x)
3) Therefore, Human(Socrates)

Or you can use sets and model "is a" with set-membership and "all...are" with set inclusion.

1) Socrates ∈ Greeks
2) Greeks ⊆ Humans
3) Therefore, Socrates ∈ Humans

Calilasseia wrote:Logic is essentially a formal means of differentiating between valid and invalid reasoning. However, it has a broader remit than simply identifying particular cases of each: it seeks to determine the nature of classes of argument, not simply individual instances of those classes.

I´d say that this has it in reverse. Logic provides us with abstract and general rules for the deduction of statements from other statements. That doesn´t mean that it looks at the nature of classes of argument, but rather that arguments follow some logic.

Calilasseia wrote:A somewhat terse, dense, but ultimately highly informative book on the subject, is Methods of Logic by Willard Van Ormand Quine. Even if you find it heavy going, it's worth persevering with, because at the end, you'll discover that the remit of analytical logic is even broader than this, not least because analytical logic introduces some set theory axioms into the mix, and from that point, allows you to define the concept of 'number' from more fundamental entities. But I'm jumping ahead of the game by a massive amount here.

Well, that depends on your choice of primitive concepts (and above I briefly touched upon ZOL as Zmod2, basically getting to logic from numbers). It´s worth noting however that moving from ZOL to numbers in general requires the introduction of further axioms and in particular it moves your axioms past the "Gödel-threshold" - ZOL is consistent and it can be proven using ZOL that this is the case and you can prove any true ZOL statement. The same of course doesn´t hold for numbers anymore and from that point on we can´t prove the consistency of an axiomatic system from within that system. There´s a big change in how certain we can be of results at this point and the above makes it look more like a continuous progression than it is.

Zwaarddijk wrote:Logic is fairly commonly used in various branches of Jewish theology, e.g. in Halakhic reasoning, for one.

It´s also used in catholic theology. Or quite generally, as a deductive field any theology depends on the use of logic.

susu.exp wrote:Well, that depends on your choice of primitive concepts (and above I briefly touched upon ZOL as Zmod2, basically getting to logic from numbers). It´s worth noting however that moving from ZOL to numbers in general requires the introduction of further axioms and in particular it moves your axioms past the "Gödel-threshold" - ZOL is consistent and it can be proven using ZOL that this is the case and you can prove any true ZOL statement.

I'm not familiar with ZOL. I've just checked it out on wiki. It's first-order logic without quantifiers? How do you make a claim of consistency without them?

Cheers for any help.

RationalVegan wrote:
Can you explain the meaning of word salad to me

Verbal diarrhoea

VazScep wrote:I'm not familiar with ZOL. I've just checked it out on wiki. It's first-order logic without quantifiers? How do you make a claim of consistency without them?

Cheers for any help.

It is first order logic without quantifiers. Alternatively it´s just the Integral domain containing only the neutral elements for addition and multiplication. Consistency in completeness follow from the basic rules of arithmetic defined therein. The lack of quantifiers means you have finite formulae (quantifiers are basically sums and products over some general index set) containing only addition and multiplication and this in turn provides for a sequence by which you can eliminate terms until you end up with a number.
In this case consider the set {T,F} and the binary operations AND and XOR
Defining the 4 combinations of values you can use for the binary operatons as follows
T XOR T = F
T XOR F = T
F XOR F = F
F XOR T = F
T AND T = T
T AND F = F
F AND T= F
F AND F = F
You can now easily show that the triple ({T,F},XOR,AND) satisfies the axioms for an Integral domain and that finite formulae can be reduced step by step to constants, i.e. they are either T or F.
The same doesn´t generally hold for infinite sequences XOR (i=1..infinity) T = ? (basically that formula would answer whether ininity was odd or even).

susu.exp wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:Logic is fairly commonly used in various branches of Jewish theology, e.g. in Halakhic reasoning, for one.

It´s also used in catholic theology. Or quite generally, as a deductive field any theology depends on the use of logic.

In fact, to such an extent that Catholic scholars during the medieval era developed logic a bit.

susu.exp wrote:It is first order logic without quantifiers. Alternatively it´s just the Integral domain containing only the neutral elements for addition and multiplication.

Do you just mean 0 and 1?

VazScep wrote:

susu.exp wrote:It is first order logic without quantifiers. Alternatively it´s just the Integral domain containing only the neutral elements for addition and multiplication.

Do you just mean 0 and 1?

Yup. True is the 1 of ZOL (neutral for the AND operation), while False is the 0 of ZOL (neutral for XOR).

susu.exp wrote:It is first order logic without quantifiers. Alternatively it´s just the Integral domain containing only the neutral elements for addition and multiplication.

What does this abstract description buy you? I mean, why talk about integral domains at all? I understand that once you eliminate quantifiers, you are effectively propositional, and that classical propositional logic can be understood as the logic of two objects, and that AND and XOR are minimal connectives. But how does the algebra of integral domains do heavy work here?

By comparison, the algebraic description for intuitionistic logic says that truth values form a bounded lattice with the Heyting property: for any truth values P and Q, there must be a uniquely largest truth value, called P → Q such that (P → Q) ∧ P is less than Q. Classical propositional logic is then the lattice containing just T and F, where F < T. But the full algebraic description is necessary since intuitionistic logic is the set of formulas with maximal truth value over any bounded lattice with the Heyting property.

And what about this comment:

ZOL is consistent and it can be proven using ZOL that this is the case. The same of course doesn´t hold for numbers anymore and from that point on we can´t prove the consistency of an axiomatic system from within that system.

I took you to be saying that you can formalise the notion of consistency within in ZOL and derive a theorem saying "I am consistent."