|
Aurino,
I'm not following you.
***H: A=A is the identity relationship and it is an axiom of logic (i.e., true by definition). Is that what you mean to say, that "LNC" is an axiom of formal logic? A: No, it's more than that. A whole lot more.***
Why the mystery? It's an axiom. If there's more than why not blurt it out?
***H: The issue with Alan is that he is treating the axiom as needfully true... A: Hah! That's the whole point! What I understand, what I believe Dick is talking about, what I think Alan is starting to grasp, if he hasn't already, is why the axiom cannot possibly be false.***
Okay, why?
***H: ... but that would be demonstrate a proof of an axiom (which there is none) A: I can see clearly now, the rain is gone. Here is the rainbow I've been praying for. Harv, you have no idea how thankful I am that you made that statement. That makes it clear what stands in your way of understanding what's ultimately a very simple concept. Unfortunately I can't possibly expect to succeed where Dick and Alex have miserably failed. But that's OK, I don't want to teach you anything you don't want to learn, I just wanted to understand what's going on in your head and now I do.***
Aurino, this is typical of your approach in a few situations between us. You grasp something from some factual statement that I make and then proceed to play the child's game "I know something you don't, na na na". Really, Aurino, didn't you get enough of that game in kindergarten?
***Thanks again!***
Thank me for what? Telling you something that is a known fact of formal systems? I would feel proud that I've helped you understand the basis of things like classical logic, but from your response I don't think you understand it. Instead, you want to play with red herrings then go ahead, but I think the lack of argument (i.e., no argument) speaks for itself.
Have fun! Harv
|
