I love logic.
I may not always follow it.
I may not always understand it.
But I truly love logic.
I have a few questions that I would like to explore:
A = A
This means “A” is equal to “A”.
Is there another way to interpret this? Can I say: “A” is the same as “A”.?
Does this equation mean that “A” is “A” and nothing else?
Can I make the argument that A = B is false because “A” can only be the same as “A” and that “B” would not be called “B” if it were the same as “A” (that is, “B” would simply be called “A”)?
Law of non-contradiction says that something cannot be said both to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect.
Law of the excluded middle says that something must either be or not be.
Law of identity says that something is what it is.
Isn’t that a bit redundant? As you are not saying anything but the obvious, saying 2 is 2, doens’t say much right? It also just follows as the law of identity, as A must be A and nothing else.
Isn’t that the basis that all math equations work on? The only difference between A and B really is our perception of them, as their principle values are the same.
ie. (5 X 4 + 7) = (3 X 9)
27 = 27
As you can see, both sides have different face values, but with some arithmetic they are both equal.
Nope. It depends on your value. When you have a value you have equality and inequality. B and A, we’ll say, are (1) and (2 - 1). They’re different numbers that represent different letters, but both = regardless.
I am an artist and a musician. I do not do your taxes or fix your Mp3 player… I am blessed/plagued with an extremely strong right brain which (consequently) may lead me to forget trash day and/or balance my checkbook appropriately. I am medicated for ADD.
Many of ILP posts to me look like this:
A=C only when A has properties relating to balance and time given so many light years away from the center of the planet Uranus. Only then could A become what used to be B making C in close proximity to A. That, of course, is only today. Tomorrow would be a different story due to recent global warming. Guess how well I did on my SAT? I left early because I was bored.
I am trying so very hard to relate to all this logic, but…
(as always, my greatest regard and respect goes to thirst4logic)
In programming, A = A sets the new value of A to the current value of A. A = B sets the new value of A to the current value of B. So I suppose, from that standpoint, you’d be right. A = A and A = B would not be compatible unless B = A was established first.
A=B could mean all sorts, but what it cannot mean, logically, is that A is identical to B, for the reason you yourself have offered. The difference is that a logical statement may be concerned with an aspect rather than the whole thing. 2 cars may weigh the same but not be the same.
Bessy, it’s no excuse - sorry. I do the ‘logic thing’ and the ‘music/art thing’ as do many people. You aren’t incapable ‘thanks to your brain’. You’re just lazy!
Ok the ADD might be something to do with it… But I’m still confident you could be a logic expert if you really tried. As you say, you just don’t give a shit (which means, you’re not bothered enough = lazy!).
This is a very different (ok, not very) form of logic to philosophical logic. I learned that the hard way. The logic systems don’t mix too well once you get past the fundamentals. But the nice thing about computational logic is - it works! Philosophical logic often doesn’t, or at least, has significantly more problems.
You are right, as I said. I teach music and there is very intense theory involved. My personal life has been shit lately, so I was just venting to you, but you are RIGHT!
But I already said that. I am staying off ILP until I am back in control. Maybe that means… around 2009.
Considering, say, Beethoven…yeah, but then, considering Metallica…umm. I classify it as an art form, trying not to get carried away with what we’d call logical.
But maybe Metallica even is logical. Guitar riffs are, in essence, a progressional logic. Metallica’s album S&M with symphonic orchestra - beautiful pieces of music as essentially classical as Beethoven. There is a line of thought that goes “it can only sound good if it is logical”. Some support for this comes out of the pop industry - three chords, repeated, melodic shifts every 18 bars, etc etc. It’s a mathematical ‘formula’, so they would say. Not sure I agree (subjective understanding of ‘sounds good’) but it’s interesting.
not sure if that helps but…
But I’m still confident you could be a logic expert if you really tried. As you say, you just don’t give a shit (which means, you’re not bothered enough = lazy!).
I classify it as an art form, trying not to get carried away with what we’d call logical.