# Is a priori logic immutable with the passage ot time?

no, that is changing the meaning exactly.

your immutable mathematical forms have disintegrated just as plato’s did.

-Imp

sets and members dictate the logic, the equation is only the language we use to communicate a meaning.

quantitative logic does not change.

humans see change because we are incomplete by design

Just because humans aren’t around to count things doesn’t mean those things are without quantity.

# 2 sets of 1 + 1 set of 3

5

2+1=5

you changed the meaning of the symbols.

I equivocated. My bad. What about this, I’ve been reading this logic dude lately, and he’s pretty upset about the little sideways U. He says it only allows us to talk about things in this world. If we want to talk about things in other worlds, then we have to use a box with an arrow, or a diamond with an arrow. I can’t draw them here, but I call them box arrow, and diamond arrow. It’s pretty neat.

logicians look at all possibility, if x were true, if x were false, and then compare that against certain desireable or rational conditions.

i forget the logic symbols, but in truth tables everything is equally considered as a possible state of the world.

is this box diamond thing his own invention? i fail to recall it.

I think it’s new. It’s from a thing called “an analysis of counterfactuals”. I can email it to you if you’d like to take a look. Pretty interesting stuff really if you’re into logic. It’s not easy to read, (at least not for me), but it’s worth the effort.

If something, b, is defined to be a sub-set of a larger group,a, and nothing else, then, using that exact definition, is it possible for one to make the claim that “if b, then not a” and still be logically correct?