harpua13
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 49 |   |
Karma: 0
|
Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/29 19:13
I obviously DO understand it. You are saying that the following statements are synonymous:
1) x implies y 2) not x implies not y
THAT is incorrect and illogical. The following, on the other hand,
IS correct AND logical:
1) x implies y
is synonymous with
2) not y implies not x
Here, I'll put it on a truth table for you:
x y x => y ~x => ~y ~y => ~x
Popular posts by harpua13
The latest Jethroism (Destined to b...
Another lie by Dreck Nash
Somebody stick a fork in Dreck, He'...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
harpua13
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 49 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/29 22:30
Here's another one for you to choke on, from a True?False quiz on the
http://www.lakecity.cc.fl.us/Personnel%20Pages/mosest/ch2v1key.htm
17. If an argument has the form called denying the antecedent, then it always has false premises. F
What do you think that 'F' for the answer means?
Popular posts by harpua13
The latest Jethroism (Destined to b...
Another lie by Dreck Nash
Somebody stick a fork in Dreck, He'...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
harpua13
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 49 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/30 09:08
I understand it perfectly. Far better than either Dreck or you.
Would you like confirmation from the college where I've worked part-time TEACHING symbolic logic?
OK, and your point is? Why did you snip out the second part of both statements? The second part of each completes the context and makes both statements functionally the same. YOU don't understand a thing.
Even Dreck got you with the use of "syllogism".
My logic comes straight out of the textbook.
Title: Introductory Symbolic Logic Without Formal Proofs, Sixth
Revised Edition
Author: George Schedler, Southern Illinois University at
Publisher: Stipes Publishing Company, Champaign, Illinois.
which is poor to
It is perfectly sound.
went downhill from there.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Popular posts by harpua13
The latest Jethroism (Destined to b...
Another lie by Dreck Nash
Somebody stick a fork in Dreck, He'...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
jbsphishn
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/30 09:42
You were saying?
Popular posts by jbsphishn
Apology to swamp
The "Counting Game" and t...
Dreck Trash and yet another lie
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
jbsphishn
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/30 11:42
Correction and clarification for the nit-pickers (of which there is a total of one so far): In keeping the X's and Y's the same as in
Dreck's syllogism and further parts of my post, the above X's should be changed to Y's and the Y's changed to X's. I think anyone who cared to concentrate on the substance would have realized this and focused on the truth tables and other proofs of my post.
Popular posts by jbsphishn
Apology to swamp
The "Counting Game" and t...
Dreck Trash and yet another lie
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
jbsphishn
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/30 14:55
I did. I post through Google, usually, and the different threads are clearly distinguishable.
I accept that you made a mistake...I guess. However, that still doesn't explain why you questioned the equivalence of these two statements:
1) If X, then Y
2) X implies Y
They are logically equivalent.
Popular posts by jbsphishn
Apology to swamp
The "Counting Game" and t...
Dreck Trash and yet another lie
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
jbsphishn
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/30 18:08
Yes, I've proven it conclusively. You don't understand a fucking thing you've written, much less what anyone else has said.
Yes, you did:
X Y if X, then Y X implies Y
Popular posts by jbsphishn
Apology to swamp
The "Counting Game" and t...
Dreck Trash and yet another lie
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Neo-Kagato
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 12 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/31 11:09
You might also point out to Dreck that the "vegan"
Denying the Antecedent argument in which he and all dumb "vegans" believe is, by his definitions, both invalid AND unsound. The form is invalid, and the conclusion is false, hence unsound: he and all
"vegans" DO cause animals to suffer and die.
Popular posts by Neo-Kagato
Existence is not a benefit
Gay Marriage Shocker
The problem with CD's and the an...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
jbsphishn
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/31 16:11
It's not a logical conclusion due to denying the antecedent.
If X, then Y is NOT the same as If not X, then not Y.
Yes you are.
I've made my argument clear
There is no logical conclusion from your two premises.
1) If X, then Y
Does NOT lead to a conclusion of
3) Not Y
I showed you why and, as usual, you snipped it because you are too fucking stupid to understand it.
You are denying the antecedent merely by presenting that argument.
A valid form does not mean a logical argument.
If X, then Y and If not X, then not Y are not equivalent.
If X, then Y and If not Y, then not X are equivalent.
Yes, I can. The premises are true (taking for granted you don't eat meat). The conclusion does NOT logically follow from those premises.
No, it doesn't:
http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/studyskills/as/as_cr_ar_de_co.html
All emphasis (*** ***) is mine.
An ***invalid*** form of argument
Nor should you argue by denying the antecedent (ie 'not P'). It is
Popular posts by jbsphishn
Apology to swamp
The "Counting Game" and t...
Dreck Trash and yet another lie
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Wiscphisherman07
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 11 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/03/31 23:27
You'll never get through to him on this. This is like his absurd contention that someone cannot "buy" stolen goods.
You are right: "soundness" (not a term used in the study of logic) and validity are equivalent. His fuckwitted conclusion does NOT logically follow from the premises. The argument is invalid, hence unsound.
It's trivially easy to see why the argument doesn't follow: there are more ways to cause suffering and death to animals than by eating them. As we have seen,
Dreck drives his shitheap of a car through pastures, striking animals and maiming and killing them. That he doesn't eat them is immaterial: he causes suffering and death to farm animals, EVEN THOUGH he doesn't eat them.
His argument is invalid/unsound, as is any argument that commits the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.
Of course:
Dreck Nash lives in England
Dreck Nash claims to be a "vegan"
Therefore, Dreck understands propositional logic.
The conclusion, in addition to being laughably false, does not follow from the true premises. In fact, it has nothing to do with them.
Time to stop, Kevin. You've won. Dreck is repeating stuff already shown to be false, and parading his ignorance by insisting there's some difference between validity and "soundness", when there is not.
Popular posts by Wiscphisherman07
sad, pathetic way to live
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
jbsphishn
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/04/01 02:06
And that is true, but the arguer must present a
Which is invalid. The two statements:
1) X => Y
and
2) ~X => ~Y
are NOT equivalent.
That one would be valid. The two statements:
1) X => Y
and
2) ~Y => ~X
ARE equivalent.
You are incompetent with logic. Why have you been unable to figure out, after all this time, that the form you insist on using is, BY
DEFINITION, the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent? By the way Dreck, the next lesson is "Affirmation of the Consequent" so let me know when you are ready to go on to Rule Number Two.
Popular posts by jbsphishn
Apology to swamp
The "Counting Game" and t...
Dreck Trash and yet another lie
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Wiscphisherman07
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 11 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Logic 101 (for Dreck) - 2004/04/01 06:17
Right. His conclusion is false. His problem is his hidden premise that EATING farmed animals is the only way to harm them. As I have shown, his deliberate killing of them by driving his shitheap car through farmers' pastures and running down the animals, maiming and killing them, is another way to cause farm animals to suffer and die. Dreck does this, which is (one reason) why his argument is unsound, as well as invalid.
Look at another example.
If I wear fur garments, I cause fur-bearing animals to suffer and die.
I do not wear fur garments;
therefore, I do not cause fur-bearing animals to suffer and die.
This is another Denying the Antecedent argument, and it is INVALID. We can see that it is also unsound, as
Dreck defines the term: "ara" terrorists frequently get into fur farms and release the animals, and it is known that the animals always die, quite often painfully, and almost always earlier than they would have had they lived out their lives on fur farms.
Thus, even though the lying shitwipe "aras" don't wear fur garments, they DO cause fur-bearing animals to suffer and die.
Dreck cannot salvage the fallacious "vegan" argument.
It is logically invalid AND "unsound".
Premises are not valid or invalid; premises are true or false. Arguments may be valid or invalid.
Yeah, that's what's also infuriating about this whole thing. We know, we absolutely KNOW beyond dispute, that Dreck eats meat and all the rest. He has some kind of fuckwitted rationale, to be sure, but he eats it.
Yes, it does have that form. Watch the ignorant fuck deny it, because the one you have presented doesn't explicitly contain the conditional premise the others do. No matter that you can easily rewrite it so it does; Dreck is too stupid to understand things like that.
And ALWAYS will lack it.
Popular posts by Wiscphisherman07
sad, pathetic way to live
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
|
post new topic