Logic

[Siggie]

Wow, you're the only non gullible one, and such wisdom. http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/rolleyes.gif

Anon, learn to read okay? I didn't say I was not gullible. I said people are gullible, since i am a person, logically that includes me.

People are gullible
Siggie is a person
Siggie is gullible

See how that works?

[Sip]

Anon, learn to read okay? I didn't say I was not gullible. I said people are gullible, since i am a person, logically that includes me.

People are gullible
Siggie is a person
Siggie is gullible

See how that works?


Yah I think I got it. So let me try :

People are gullible
Siggie is a person
Siggie is gullible
People are Siggie.

[Darorinag]

^ That's a non sequitur ...

People = A
gullible = B
Siggie = C

A = B
B = C
=> A = C

A = C does not imply C = A.

E.g.: All dogs are animals and all animals are dogs are not the same thing.

[Sip]

He is using the equality symbol '=' instead of the "are" relationship which is incorrect. It may be more appropriate to use logical equivalence (with the proper symobl being '<=>') which is still incorrect. Under equality, A=C always implies C=A by definition of the '=' operator.

However, in this case, it is probably better to use set or logic notation as opposed to algerbraic notation. Note that '->' means "implies".

Following Darorinag's notation (People=A, gullible=B, Siggie=C):

People are gullible: A -> B
Siggie is a person: C -> A

Thus we have C -> B, in other words, Siggie is gullible.

[Darorinag]

The use of the equality symbol is not purely based on discrete math here, as we all know, because people cannot be defined with an "=" as gullible. It's a purely semantic issue, one that is not significant considering the gist of the matter is the faulty logic of affirming the consequent...

Of course, I could go on with a very complex/long mathematical proof, but the reason I put = was to make things faster and easier for those who don't know what the other symbols meant...

[Sip]

Who's talking discrete math? If you intended the '=' to be something other than equality, then you MUST define it. Otherwise, if it is infact the equality symbol, then transitive, reflexive, and symmetric properties hold.

To refresh our memory with basic math (discrete or otherwise):

Symmetric: for quantities a and b, if a=b then b=a.
Reflexive: for a quantity a, a=a.
Transitive: for quantities a, b and c, if a=b and b=c then a=c.

[loseyourname]

I'm sure you guys didn't mean to start a thread like this, but oh well. The topic does interest me. So post your thoughts on logic. Besides, I think everyone in the intellectual forum could use a little primer. Let's analyze some arguments.

[dusken]

I am always logical.

[Anonymouse]

Not always. Sometimes you're illogical.

[Sip]

What if being logical sometimes entails being illogical?

[ckBejug]

What if being logical sometimes entails being illogical?

What is logic? Is it a few rungs above common sense on some kind of imaginary ladder?

Be logical! Use your logic! It almost seems like 'add different parts of your common sense together to formulate a result.' No?

[Anonymouse]

Nothing is logical that's for sure. More like irony.

[Sip]

What is logic?

In this context, I like this definition from the dictionary:

"inescapable relationship and pattern of events: the relationship between certain events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of their interaction"

Logic and common sense don't always necessarily go hand in hand. For example, logic tells us that the guy sitting there about to make a right turn in front of you going straight at the intersection is not going to do it. Common sense tells us that the idiot will probably turn in front of you at the last second. :D

[Anonymouse]

Logic says he should be shot. Common sense will say no.