Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on April 9, 2002 16:27:51 UTC


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

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins