Communities and Collections

Posts

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

A friend in logic is trying to explain why ∀y y = y is a tautology, but ∀x x = x is not:

"because there are infinitely many non-isomorphic realizations of ∀y y = y since the domain may be of arbitrary cardinality; so there is no finite procedure whether a given first order formula is universally valid or not;

whereas with a tautology you can build a truth table.

And the truth table is a finite algorithm."

Can someone help me parse this out as they seem to be both FoL and that the existential quantifier formula ∀x x=x is an identity formula or reflexive axiom right? How is that not a tautology?

He then went on to add:

"∀y y = y isn't a tautology either, sorry if I didn't make that clear; the text you linked is wrong.

Suppose you want to verify whether (p & (p-

And says that it is due to the Entscheidungsproblem, which not seeing how it applies here.

Here is the linked text...(that he says is wrong)

Can false beliefs have epistemic value? Wittgenstein seems to argue that 'hinge commitments' are not or should not be doubted, are arational and assumed true like properly basic beliefs...and if those beliefs are false (unbeknownst to the agent) do they have epistemic value?

MERRY CHRISTMAS to the entire GDC. And even though the GDC on G+ next year will cease to be, the GDC will always live on! We will be on other social media.

I thank all those who have given us brilliant posts or even just anyone who has posted and been a part of the discussion.

Here is to bringing in the new year!

I thank all those who have given us brilliant posts or even just anyone who has posted and been a part of the discussion.

Here is to bringing in the new year!

Post has attachment

With out me poisoning the well...how many errors can you find in this single comment from +Aron Featherf00t as he thinks I am arrogant for pointing out when someone is totally and utterly inept at basic logic.

Post has attachment

Kyle and I are on Drunken Peasants tonight!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIXKnEEpplA&list=PLGBXcHi8dHCJo2GJL7ocjhWo3IZUpENE-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIXKnEEpplA&list=PLGBXcHi8dHCJo2GJL7ocjhWo3IZUpENE-

Post has attachment

Matt refers to me but doesn't portray agnostic right and my flowchart starts with the question "Does God exist? because it is the great debate question. It wasn't supposed to start with a proposition. I later move to a proposition.

https://youtu.be/QAQ3OHOy0ww?t=4750

https://youtu.be/QAQ3OHOy0ww?t=4750

Post has attachment

What happens when you correct Matt Dillahunty with peer reviewed papers and citations:

+Lucifer Almighty Big surprise right?

+Lucifer Almighty Big surprise right?

Post has attachment

A very crude, but pretty correct belief map I made if you are wanting to know philosophically what "position'' you are. I may make a 2.0 map at some point. Let me know if this helps.

Wait while more posts are being loaded