Improved Squid Argument

[Speakpigeon]

1) Speakpigeon’s squid argument is not valid.
2) Speakpigeon’s squid argument is valid.
C) Speakpigeon’s squid argument is valid.

Yeah, that's exactly how AM proves mathematical logic is "superior" to human logic.

Sure, some dude can use mathematical logic's notion of validity to "prove" that mathematical logic's notion of validity is best. Right.

Good we've establish this basic fact.

Jimmy, try to take the time to articulate your views rather than splash shit on the wall.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

1) Speakpigeon’s squid argument is not valid.
2) Speakpigeon’s squid argument is valid.
C) Speakpigeon’s squid argument is valid.

Yeah, that's exactly how AM proves mathematical logic is "superior" to human logic.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said, uttered with complete disregard for the truth. I never claimed or suggested that mathematical logic is superior to human logic. Rather, I showed that that was the case assuming for the sake of the argument that some of Speakpigeon's claims were true. It was a reductio argument against Speakpigeon's position. And the argument had nothing to do with that.
For those interested, I made the argument repeatedly and in detail in this thread.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No, you do not understand what you are saying. At all. Take a look at the links. In order to prove that the square root of two is not a quotient of integers, they assume it is, and from that assumption and other (known) premises, they derive a contradiction. Obviously, the premises together were contradictory premises, otherwise they could not have derived a contradiction! I gave an argument with contradictory premises in another thread, for example. It's a standard argument. Even if you do not realize that, your claims imply it's invalid.

There is a difference between assuming P to prove ¬P, and assuming ¬P to prove P (a difference that matters in intuitionistic but not in classical mathematical logic). But in any event, those are all instances of deductions with contradictory premises.

No.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, you do not understand what you are saying. At all. Take a look at the links. In order to prove that the square root of two is not a quotient of integers, they assume it is, and from that assumption and other (known) premises, they derive a contradiction. Obviously, the premises together were contradictory premises, otherwise they could not have derived a contradiction! I gave an argument with contradictory premises in another thread, for example. It's a standard argument. Even if you do not realize that, your claims imply it's invalid.

There is a difference between assuming P to prove ¬P, and assuming ¬P to prove P (a difference that matters in intuitionistic but not in classical mathematical logic). But in any event, those are all instances of deductions with contradictory premises.

No.
EB

Again, one derives a contradiction by means of a valid argument, so that means the premises were contradictory in the first place. That's how one proves things by contradiction! (though given A Toy Windmill's points, maybe we can say we derive the contradiction from an inconsistent set of statements, rather than set of premises. Either way, one is deriving a contradiction from some inconsistent statements).

 

[Speakpigeon]

Again, one derives a contradiction by means of a valid argument, so that means the premises were contradictory in the first place. That's how one proves things by contradiction! (though given A Toy Windmill's points, maybe we can say we derive the contradiction from an inconsistent set of statements, rather than set of premises. Either way, one is deriving a contradiction from some inconsistent statements).

One derives a contradiction.

The right word is indeed "inconsistent". The premises are inconsistent, i.e. one premise implies the negation of the other premise.

Contradictory premises would be p and not p and that's not what we have here.

The premises here are not contradictory.

You need to make sure you know the basics before posting silly arguments.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

One derives a contradiction.

The right word is indeed "inconsistent". The premises are inconsistent, i.e. one premise implies the negation of the other premise.

Contradictory premises would be p and not p and that's not what we have here.

The premises here are not contradictory.

You need to make sure you know the basics before posting silly arguments.
EB

That does not make sense. That one premise implies the negation of the other premise is precisely a case of a contradictory/inconsistent set of premises, which means the same. Still, let us say we want to distinguish between arguments in which one of the premises implies the negation of the other premise, and argument in which a single premise is contradictory. Great, so let us consider the following argument:

Here is the Squid argument again, with improved wording following the suggestion from a specialist in mathematical logic (A Toy Windmill).

No squid is a giraffe
No giraffe is an elephant
No elephant is a squid
Joe is either a squid or a giraffe
Joe is an elephant
Therefore, Joe is a squid

Thank you to vote to say whether you think the argument is valid or not.

Thanks for your answers.

Please no comment without vote.
EB

It turns out that there is no single premise that contradicts itself. The premises are:

P1: No giraffe is an elephant
P2: No elephant is a squid
P3: Joe is either a squid or a giraffe
P4: Joe is an elephant

Each of them, on its own, is fine. What happens is that some of the premises imply the negation of others. That is precisely what you hold is okay, in the case of inconsistent premises.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That is precisely what you hold is okay, in the case of inconsistent premises.

No, read again...

The two links you give here are about proof by contradiction, or reductio ad absurdum.

Proof by contradiction basically says A implies not A, therefore not A.

Also possible, A implies B and not B; therefore not A.

In both cases, there are no contradictory premises.

Proof by contradiction has absolutely nothing to do with contradictory premises.

You really don't understand much about logic.

EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is precisely what you hold is okay, in the case of inconsistent premises.

No, read again...

The two links you give here are about proof by contradiction, or reductio ad absurdum.

Proof by contradiction basically says A implies not A, therefore not A.

Also possible, A implies B and not B; therefore not A.

In both cases, there are no contradictory premises.

Proof by contradiction has absolutely nothing to do with contradictory premises.

You really don't understand much about logic.

EB

No. Read again.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No, read again...

EB

No. Read again.

LOL.

You don't understand my French English, obviously.
EB

 

[fast]

No, read again...

EB

No. Read again.

LOL.

You don't understand my French English, obviously.
EB

I always read lol as lots of laughs whereas I always read LOL as laughs out loud. But, for you, I’m gonna make an exception.

 

[Speakpigeon]

LOL.

You don't understand my French English, obviously.
EB

I always read lol as lots of laughs whereas I always read LOL as laughs out loud. But, for you, I’m gonna make an exception.

LOL.

No, I guess you're right. I can confess it's more "out loud" than "a lot". More like a loud chuckle.

Still, clearly AM does give me a lot of them recently, which is maybe what motivates your comment.

But, yes, I don't do "lol", because it's... an acronym.
eb

 

[Speakpigeon]

And more votes cast would be good. Either way.

A vote not cast is definitely not valid.

Thank you.
EB