The Intuitionist Argument

	Duration: 582 seconds Upload Time: 07-03-09 05:50:24 User: azrienoch :::: Favorites
Description: In response to Jude's answer to my question for her game.
Comments
ourben ::: Favorites The characters you use in logic equation, they must be what we're supposed to use? Programming was my introduction to logic... 07-03-10 03:39:36 _____________________________________________________
azrienoch ::: Favorites They don't have to be. They're just popular at the moment. For example, Lukasiewicz has a system of notation using all letters. Russellian characters are the tilde, dot, wedge, horseshoe, and triple-bar. As long as you know which is which in whatever system, it's the same stuff. 07-03-10 10:54:55 _____________________________________________________
Billy7766 ::: Favorites My brain is dribbling down my ears...I follow some of this but I think I'm missing the key elements...sorry Az but you've lost me entirely 07-03-11 11:05:42 _____________________________________________________
Billy7766 ::: Favorites yes please Az...but be gentle we're just internet geeks here 07-03-11 11:08:02 _____________________________________________________
azrienoch ::: Favorites You'll get it. I promise. 07-03-11 14:29:26 _____________________________________________________
cjunk351 ::: Favorites p = WTF 07-03-13 05:20:01 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
sharpie443 ::: Favorites This reminds me a lot of my Economics classes. 07-03-14 12:43:07 _____________________________________________________
earlyphilosophy ::: Favorites Material implication is strange and, in ordinary language, we don't always use "implies" this way. We don't usually allow false statements to imply anything, however, if p is false then the statement p->q is always true. This is what the "contradiction" at 9:35 seconds depends on. The problem vanishes when you simply interpret p->q as it is defined logically and not as it is used in ordinary discourse. 07-03-29 12:45:51 _____________________________________________________
earlyphilosophy ::: Favorites p=(i am typing) If (i am typing) is true and (i am not typing) is true then (by definition of material implication) p-> -p is true. Of course both p and -p cannot both be true, so you've misused material implication so to speak. Actually, I think the interesting part comes when you take this a step further if p-> -p then p-> q where q=there are elephants in space. 07-03-29 13:44:58 _____________________________________________________
azrienoch ::: Favorites What I was going for was that p -> -p can be in a proof and not be a contradiction, but it must be superfluous. 07-03-29 13:53:08 _____________________________________________________