Moderator: Flannel Jesus
wtf wrote:I'm a human. The Pope is a human. Therefore I am the Pope.
Now go in peace and sin no more. You can cos as much as you like.
browser32 wrote:We previously talked about the logical rule of inference known as existential instantiation. With the rule of existential instantiation, I would be required to give the rectangle referred to by "a rectangle is not a square" a unique name that is different from the name I give the rectangle referred to by "a rectangle is a square."
browser32 wrote:One potential flaw with existential instantiation is that it seems to be based off of the implicit assumption that two things that are unequal are not permitted to have the same name.
browser32 wrote:In mathematics in general, that assumption seems to be made.
browser32 wrote:However, in the real world, two things that are unequal can, and sometimes do, have the same name.
browser32 wrote:So, it seems that traditional mathematics is flawed because it seems to have an unnecessary rule that reality does not abide by.
browser32 wrote:Conflation among different things with the same name may be an inevitable or necessary feature of nature.
browser32 wrote:The most questionable step in the above argument is (5), which I provided as a premise. The premise is that the rectangle that is a square is equal to the rectangle that is not a square. The premise's truth is based off of the fact that d and g each have the same name, a rectangle.
wtf wrote:I'm a human. The Pope is a human. Therefore I am the Pope.
wtf wrote:Here "is" does not mean "equals," which would allow you to use transitivity of equality: if A = B and B = C then A = C.
wtf wrote:No, it's an inevitable or necessary feature of natural language.
wtf wrote:The names of things are not the things.
browser32 wrote:The names of things are not always the things. The names of things can be considered properties of the things. It actually seems the name of a thing is often considered a property of the thing. For example, in computer software, the name of an object is often considered one of the most important properties of the object.
wtf wrote:Yes, and in biology a cat is a four legged furry handwarmer, while in popular culture it's an especially hip hipster. What of it?
wtf wrote:2 is a number and 3 is a number, but 2 is not equal to 3.
wtf wrote:When we say that 2 = 1 + 1 and 1 + 1 = 5 - 3, that's equality. It's a transitive relation, so that we may conclude that 2 = 5 - 3.
wtf wrote:You are simply equivocating "is" as set or class membership, and "is" as the equality relationship.
browser32 wrote:So, in the sense that 2 and 3 each is a natural number, 2 is equal to 3.
browser32 wrote:We previously talked about the logical rule of inference known as existential instantiation. With the rule of existential instantiation, I would be required to give the rectangle referred to by "a rectangle is not a square" a unique name that is different from the name I give the rectangle referred to by "a rectangle is a square." One potential flaw with existential instantiation is that it seems to be based off of the implicit assumption that two things that are unequal are not permitted to have the same name. In mathematics in general, that assumption seems to be made. However, in the real world, two things that are unequal can, and sometimes do, have the same name. So, it seems that traditional mathematics is flawed because it seems to have an unnecessary rule that reality does not abide by.
In the second argument, it is postulated that there is a rectangle that both is and is not a square. The basis for that contradiction is that the rectangle that is a square and the rectangle that is not a square are the same because each is a rectangle. They each have the property of being a rectangle. They each have the name a rectangle. They each share the noun phrase a rectangle.
browser32 wrote:Mad Man P:
I don't have to rename the rectangles. I don't have to give each rectangle a unique name. It is permitted that both rectangles simultaneously have the same name. That is how it is in real life.
browser32 wrote:My language use in my argument may be poor, but it does seem to be permitted.
Mad Man P wrote:From who or what are you seeking this permission?
browser32 wrote:while the rectangle in the quoted statement "a rectangle is a square" may not be the same rectangle in the quoted statement "a rectangle is not a square," the quoted noun phrase "a rectangle" has the same meaning in both statements. That common meaning is "one quadrilateral that has four right angles."
browser32 wrote:I am seeking this permission from the rules of the English language.
browser32 wrote:I am not equivocating because the noun phrase "a rectangle" is used in the same sense at all times in my argument. That sense can be a fixed definition such as "one parallelogram that has four right angles."
Mad Man P wrote:It's not controversial at all to state that you can make unclear and ambiguous statements using the english language.
It's nevertheless logically fallacious to draw any conclusions based off of that ambiguity.
Mad Man P wrote:Where you equivocate is where you change the referent of "a rectangle" from the item that is a square to the item that is not a square...
Mad Man P wrote:Essentially you've given two distinct items the same name and are confusing yourself.
Mad Man P wrote:"Bob watched tv last night" and "Bob did not watch tv last night" are not contradictory statements, unless they both referred to the same "Bob".
Mad Man P wrote:Like I said, equivocation is a fallacy so this is not a contradiction, just a demonstration of poor use of language.
browser32 wrote:Mad Man P wrote:"Bob watched tv last night" and "Bob did not watch tv last night" are not contradictory statements, unless they both referred to the same "Bob".
You do seem to be correct. However, the statements I'm using do not involve definite subjects. They involve indefinite subjects, as is indicated by the indefinite article a.
I am not equivocating; I am operating in a sense you do not believe I am operating in. My use of language is not poor; it is commonly used and accepted. What I have actually demonstrated is an ingenious use of language.
Mad Man P wrote:If the subject of your statements are not the same, then there is no contradiction... but you've just committed yourself to there being no definite subject, meaning you cannot generate a contradiction.
browser32 wrote:Some rectangles are squares. So, a rectangle is a square.
Mad Man P wrote:"Something is a ball" and "something is not a ball" are likewise not contradictory statements.
Mad Man P wrote:It is not commonly used or accepted... it's uncommonly confused and moronic.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users