Can anyone here help me with a certain logic problem? I'm having some trouble with it.
Thanks
Posted by Machiavelli on :
well you have to ask what the problem or question is in order for us to try to answer it...
Posted by BuyTex on :
yes
or
no
Posted by bdgee on :
Try this. Is the folloing true or false?
This statement is false. Posted by hlniv on :
It's true, but, yeah, that'll f*ck with your head...
Posted by BuyTex on :
actually, true and false are irrelevant. Arguments are either valid or invalid...
Posted by BuyTex on :
as i recall, true and false are irrelevant. Arguments are either valid or invalid...
Posted by bdgee on :
but a valid argument based on valid foundations is true. Quibbling over whether or not true and valid have the same conotation is avoiding the problem. Actually, the fundamental difficulty is with the claim that "This statement is false." is a statement. Logically we do not allow a thing, just because it can be put into the structure we call a sentence, to be a statement (no not just an utterance either......anything vocal or audible might qualify if we allowed that) unless it isn't self contradictory (which "This statement is false." would be). There are other restrictions on what a statement may be, but consistancy if fundamental.
Posted by bdgee on :
One of the most popular failures and claims results from the common mis-belief that in logic, mathematics, set theory, etc., it is true that "a set can be anything you want it to be". First, who designated you as having the power to decide what a set is? Thereby, under the assumption that a set can be anything you choose, Bertrand Russel chose to designate the "set of all sets that do not contain themselves". Now that one will tease your notions about being a logical being unless you give up the notion that you can control what sets are and the belief that what sets can be is "undefined", in the sense of being without restriction.
Posted by BuyTex on :
bdgee, lol, you lost me, dude--but somehow I think we agree...
it's like the "logic" my ex and new spouse come up with...ha ha ha, when they chime together, it sounds like grackels...which is my private name for them...lol, squwaaaakk grate hisss
what I'm saying is, you know as well as I, you can posit a perfectly "valid" argument that has nothing to do with "truth."
My retort when faced with these:
"them": How many legs does a dog have, if you count the the tail as a leg?
me: "Dudn't matter how you count the tail, dog's got four legs."
Posted by Machiavelli on :
Stop the madnessssssssss!!!!!! lol jkkk
Posted by bdgee on :
Gotta define your terms. If you define a dog's tail to be a leg, then it's true....he has four legs....and also five legs. Now define his ears to be legs too and hel have seven, provided he has the standard assortment. But if you're busy quibbling about who has the authority to do the defining, you are NOT considering the logic. Arguments about who makes the rules or what they are is politics, not logic.
Posted by BuyTex on :
lol, define away, but the dog knows the difference between its legs and its tail...
still wanna do that T-shirt, btw
Posted by slim on :
A lot of time and energy is going to waste as far as I'm concerned, I read Bertrand Russell in the late 50s or early 60s, a lot of it was good reading. A normal dog has four legs, I don't know who made the rule I don't care, why quibble over it? A little common sense goes a long long way. For every solution to a problem there's another problem. Follow that line of thinking you'll never get done. Just my opinion.
Posted by Chadsly on :
That same dog also has one leg.
Posted by Chadsly on :
He also has millions of legs (from all the fleas).
Posted by bdgee on :
Most of what Russel wrote was egotistical crap patting himself on the back....most was claimed to be phylosophical. He did write some mathematical things that thrill mostly non-mathematicians and an ocassional algebraist, but most of that reduced to self praise, too. It was that trait that caused his teacher and early collaborator (Alfred North Whitehead) to refuse to ever work with him again. However, in all his nonsense, there is one jewel that is so brilliant it is enough to mark him as a great scholar.......the paradox of the "set of all sets".
Posted by glassman on :
reputation aside? i don't know that it actually made him as a great scholar.. the problem of the "set of all sets" is more about linguistics than it is about logic.... Let S be the set of all those sets which are not members of themselves. Then this set can not exist.
he shoulda gone into politics...he woulda "fit in" with that set better Posted by bdgee on :
hahahaha
In most "schools" of logic almost all logic reduces to very careful and very precise linguistics. I point out that Russel did not belong to such a school.
Actually, as is hinted at and evidenced by his frequent "troubles" with governmental authority, he did a lot more politics than he did logic.
Posted by BuyTex on :
the logic I appreciated?
full of p, q > symbols
allowed me to reduce "documentation" to--more or less--"if-then" statements. Didn't have to know their particular "language," all I had to know was their starting points. Reduced to symbology, flaws in their coding/documentation showed up like a June bug against a porch light...
Posted by BuyTex on :
you know what is funny?
the poster that started this thread, as far as I know, has never posted again...yiPPPes
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, I too notice the failure of the original poster to come back. Or maybe he came back and after reading a couple of replies, didn't think we were taking him seriously?
Posted by BuyTex on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: well you have to ask what the problem or question is in order for us to try to answer it...
doubt it--that he/she thought we not were serious--the most exellent poster, Machster, was her/his first reply...my guess? 1st poster couldn't get his /her thoughts together well enough to state her/his "problem" and simply w-e-n-t a-w-a-y...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)