A = ~A
what does this imply, if simply assumed and taken as an axiomatic truth?
>inb4 nypa
halp pls
>A = ~A
>what does this imply
Uh, contradiction?
>>1348183
>A = ~A
wut?
>>1348183
isnt that a straight up logical impossibility?
A = ~A is ground for disproving any other argument, assuming that statement to be true is in essence gibberish. It's like assuming Light = Dark or 1 = -1.
>>1348215
yeah no
what does the logical system that arises out of the implied truth of contradiction look like though?
>>1348219
assume it's not impossible.
A cannot be "approximately" A.
>>1348246
symbol differs between the schools
also, V can absolutely be approximately itself.
And I see no empirical evidence for why I should simply assume [A=-A] is impossible.
Therefore because I cannot assume [] is impossible, I will attempt to craft a system in which [] is axiomatic.
>>1348183
From this you can actually prove everything
>>1348273
right?
wtf
>>1348260
>symbol differs between the schools
That doesn't matter. In syllogistic logic, A must be A, because the subject implies the predicate.
>>1348277
>A must be A
>the subject implies the predicate
necessarily? by what measurement?
Dude why are there only even and odd numbers? Why can't there a parity of three, maybe call it a trinity? Even, Odd, Angular?
>>1348290
You do know what axioms are right?
>>1348315
factual statements taken as true by systems derived from the full logical implications of those statements.
Let's say A=~A
A=A is still true.
hear me out for a second assume that an sentient omnipotence makes this possible or even necessary if it helps.
What would this mean?
>>1348322
Exactly. So why are you quibbling over one?
>>1348344
cause everybody assumes this one can't be chosen as an axiom from which to build a system and I just don't see the justification for that assumption.
>>1348224
The logical system would be that anything implies anything else you want.
Pretty convenient.
>>1348351
it can't imply this
~ [A=~A]
unless you also included that one in your set of axioms.
>>1348183
Not as far fetched as it seems. On Earth you have Humans, with their intelligence tiers, and all the lesser animals.
It wouldn't surprise me if there was the Supreme Creator Deity, humans, and a whole bunch of stuff in between; including aliens and AI.
>>1348183
Isn't it more something like
A = A
B = B
A + B = C
From there you can expand all you want I think
>>1348382
>A + B = C
no this is much better
A + B = ~ C
>>1348368
how is nthis possible? why 11 days? Is there any more info on this?
>>1348399
this is the biggest btfo of radical behaviorism ever btw all the way back in 1920 when Tolman introduced us to latent learning or the idea that mental events occur independent of behavioral expression which was a big time revelation to pigeon trainers apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_learning
>>1348422
I read the article and I find fascinating but I still can't grasp the term "latent learning". What does it mean?
>>1348444
>Latent learning is a form of learning that is not immediately expressed in an overt response; it occurs without any obvious reinforcement of the behavior or associations that are learned.
You learn the maze you're walking even if you aren't reinforced at the end. Reinforcement incentivizes rapid completion, not learning.
>>1348341
unfathomable, most likely. can you come with a scenario where something is both itself and its direct opposite? sure, we can hypothetically say it exists, but we cant hope to say anything about its properties or nature. the closest thing i can think of to something similar to that is the wave-particle duality, and that concept it currently boggling every mind that attempts to understand it, so
>>1348349
Because it can be used to prove any expression, making it useless.
>>1348183
It's just that classical logic is convenient.
>>1348377
Yes it can because it implies F = T. All falsehoods are taken to be true. Therefore,
[] -> ~[]
is true. This system contains only trivial statements because all statements have the same truth value.
