Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
So, you claim that it is not a problem when "one premise implies the negation of the other premise."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
???
I didn't say it wasn't a problem, I said it's not the same thing. And apparently you didn't know.
The crucial point is that there is no justification that any of the definitions used in mathematical logic would be correct. Put all the mathematicians and philosophers alive today together and you still don't have any justification. So, it sure looks impressive but it is vacuous and it is in contradiction with Aristotelian logic and indeed with our logical intuitions as demonstrated by the polls I carried out here and elsewhere.
Your position is pathetic and desperate. You have zero argument. You are dogmatic and impart falsehoods to people.
I'm sure you're a decent guy, but sometimes even those need to be told. Most people are just like you by the way. As soon as they have what they take to be a bit of expertise they go about pretending they know better than you even when in fact they don't. Millions of mathematicians are very much in the same situation and many will "teach".
EB