Topic: How is it that schools get kids for 12 years, but can't find time for a Logic101 course?
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #135,635
A primer on logic would not even need a full year, you could teach the very basics, review them, make sure most of the kids understood the very fundamental concepts.
There are all these parents and teachers talking about what they want to change in the schools, and government even revises curriculum now and again. Yet I never heard any of these people asking for a logic course.
It's the foundation for so many other subjects, and it would completely change how those students solve problems and evaluate candidates in elections.
It's like literacy or numeracy really.
There are all these parents and teachers talking about what they want to change in the schools, and government even revises curriculum now and again. Yet I never heard any of these people asking for a logic course.
It's the foundation for so many other subjects, and it would completely change how those students solve problems and evaluate candidates in elections.
It's like literacy or numeracy really.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 27 minutes later[^] [v] #1,441,251
Ain't math kinda like logic though
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,253
I have a degree. Looking back at the hours wasted in history lessons when a Logic course would have made more sense...And useful.
All that history was a waste of so much time.
All that history was a waste of so much time.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,257
@1,441,251 (B)
Yes, but mathematical logic isn't going to help you with evaluating a statement someone made most of the time, unless the statement is entirely about quantities.
If a politician says "We had $1mil in the fund, I took out $250,000 to pay staff, $250,000 to pay for supplies, and now the fund is empty" you can use your math to catch the error and realize they are stealing.
But most of the time you would need logic it's not like that.
Yes, but mathematical logic isn't going to help you with evaluating a statement someone made most of the time, unless the statement is entirely about quantities.
If a politician says "We had $1mil in the fund, I took out $250,000 to pay staff, $250,000 to pay for supplies, and now the fund is empty" you can use your math to catch the error and realize they are stealing.
But most of the time you would need logic it's not like that.
boof joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 26 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,258
well, schooling is more concerned that you write god damn essays based on some shit novel or chapter of a history book, like dozens of fucking essays
Christ sake, if you can show that you can write an essay, you should be able to stop that shit
Christ sake, if you can show that you can write an essay, you should be able to stop that shit
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,260
@1,441,253 (C)
I agree, even as someone who loves to read about history.
If we had to cut some hours in history, it won't have much of an effect on a student's life.
Spend one semester on logic and they will be using that every day for the rest of their lives.
I agree, even as someone who loves to read about history.
If we had to cut some hours in history, it won't have much of an effect on a student's life.
Spend one semester on logic and they will be using that every day for the rest of their lives.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,261
@1,441,258 (boof)
Yeah, I can't think of the time I spent reading Of Mice and Men and writing out three drafts has ever helped me.
But a couple hours of learning basic vocabulary in logic, some examples of reasoning errors? Infinite applications. You will start seeing fallacies being used everywhere, and you will have the language to succinctly explain why you think what you do.
Yeah, I can't think of the time I spent reading Of Mice and Men and writing out three drafts has ever helped me.
But a couple hours of learning basic vocabulary in logic, some examples of reasoning errors? Infinite applications. You will start seeing fallacies being used everywhere, and you will have the language to succinctly explain why you think what you do.
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,265
I think it would be funny if there was a propaganda course and an assignment was, if you had to make an antisemitic poster today, how would it look
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,267
They don't want a population generally capable of logic and reasoning, it's by design
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,268
@previous (E)
I agree, and this explains why the wife of the guy who runs professional wrestling isn't pushing for it.
What's sad is when you have these parents and teachers who really look like they care, and they put the time and passion in, but completely overlook this.
I agree, and this explains why the wife of the guy who runs professional wrestling isn't pushing for it.
What's sad is when you have these parents and teachers who really look like they care, and they put the time and passion in, but completely overlook this.
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,269
I think schools should consider pigeon care and keep pigeons and also bees
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,271
@previous (boof)
TPTB are trying block social media and implement digital ID.
They won't teach you how to circumvent their power structures.
TPTB are trying block social media and implement digital ID.
They won't teach you how to circumvent their power structures.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,280
@1,441,253 (C)
the english or language arts or whatever fucking thing else they want to call it was also a MASSIVE waste of time. With the unnecessary focus on history you could at least argue that they want to keep the holohoax agenda alive as long as possible, but theres no such justification for retard arts.
White students generally get a decent enough grasp of english to function as adult before highschool, and thats when english slowly begins to shift into a essay/thesis class, and what really is the point of that shit? I was being forced to write essays all the way into college.
the english or language arts or whatever fucking thing else they want to call it was also a MASSIVE waste of time. With the unnecessary focus on history you could at least argue that they want to keep the holohoax agenda alive as long as possible, but theres no such justification for retard arts.
White students generally get a decent enough grasp of english to function as adult before highschool, and thats when english slowly begins to shift into a essay/thesis class, and what really is the point of that shit? I was being forced to write essays all the way into college.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,286
@previous (F)
Part busywork to keep students occupied.
Partially it's that teachers want to be priests with priveleged access to personal information plus they get a very unique insight into your ideology so they can identify and reeducate people who don't tow the party line.
It's hard for a math teacher or a PE instructor to find out that you are a heretic, but English teachers can force you to write about anything. Even if you hide your true beliefs, they get compliance and are training you to speak about issues they way they want.
Part busywork to keep students occupied.
Partially it's that teachers want to be priests with priveleged access to personal information plus they get a very unique insight into your ideology so they can identify and reeducate people who don't tow the party line.
It's hard for a math teacher or a PE instructor to find out that you are a heretic, but English teachers can force you to write about anything. Even if you hide your true beliefs, they get compliance and are training you to speak about issues they way they want.
Mr. Bloody Sunday joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,327
Unpopular opinion: propositional logic is just discrete math minus the math.
Mr. Bloody Sunday double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,328
More specifically, it’s just boolean algebra, which is really just set theory.Everything is set theory. Probability is set theory, math is set theory, logic is set theory. Even SQL is set theory.
Mr. Bloody Sunday triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,330
It’s kinda funny, for some reason people get this idea in their head that uncertainty and deterministic logic are fundamentally opposites or incompatible, and then when you start mapping everything out you realize it’s all the same thing.Mr. Bloody Sunday quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 38 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,331
Idk, I just think it’s cool, that probability, logic, and set theory are really consequences of the same underlying principles.Mr. Bloody Sunday quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,332
It’s really cool when you realize it because then you can understand conceptually how computers can do math using logic because logic is math and math is logic, they’re the same thing.
Mr. Bloody Sunday sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,333
But anyway, I feel like a set theory course should be required more than even a logic course since binary logic is a consequence of set theory, and there are multiple consistent systems of logic you can create using set theory, not all of which have two binary states true and false. Like fuzzy logic for example, you can take the fact that NAND and NOR have functional completeness and use probability functions to reason about conditions where true and false are probabilities instead of binary, and it works. Idk I just think this is all super interesting.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,334
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,335
@previous (A)
the metaphysical energy generated by inducing microtears in a black males turdcutter and lower intestine causes many miracles to happen that is beyond the reach of science and logic.
the metaphysical energy generated by inducing microtears in a black males turdcutter and lower intestine causes many miracles to happen that is beyond the reach of science and logic.
Mr. Bloody Sunday replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,336
@1,441,334 (A)
That’s a weird way to phrase it, but I think what you’re asking is how do you say two statements are equal in Boolean algebra.
Statement a = statement b
That’s a weird way to phrase it, but I think what you’re asking is how do you say two statements are equal in Boolean algebra.
Statement a = statement b
Mr. Bloody Sunday double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,337
It’s sort of like saying, how do you turn equality into Chinese. What am I supposed to say? A是B?
Mr. Bloody Sunday triple-posted this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,339
Prepositional logic in philosophy and Boolean algebra in discrete math are just two different syntactical representations of exactly the same thing. It’s sort of like how in math, there are multiple ways to represent exactly the same thing.
5 5 * 1 + in reverse Polish notation is 26
In the standard notation (5 * 5) + 1 = 26
It’s the same thing, it means the same thing, it’s just two different ways of writing it.
5 5 * 1 + in reverse Polish notation is 26
In the standard notation (5 * 5) + 1 = 26
It’s the same thing, it means the same thing, it’s just two different ways of writing it.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 40 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,347
12 years? 13 here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,352
@1,441,336 (Mr. Bloody Sunday)
No, I understand representation and notation in boolean algebra.
How do you prove it with boolean algebra?
No, I understand representation and notation in boolean algebra.
How do you prove it with boolean algebra?
Mr. Bloodwork joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,375
@previous (A)
I don’t think you do understand it. I’m tired of you asking stupid questions on purpose. You want me to prove "equivalence." It can be proven that two statements are equivalent, but proving the concept of "equivalence" without any propositions is like asking me to prove equals. What does that mean? Prove what equals what? Really this is just another one of your schemes to be an arrogant prick for no reason to make yourself feel smart even though you’re obviously not, because you’re asking me incomplete questions.
But here, let me return the favor and ask you an equally stupid question, prove in math that x squared.
I don’t think you do understand it. I’m tired of you asking stupid questions on purpose. You want me to prove "equivalence." It can be proven that two statements are equivalent, but proving the concept of "equivalence" without any propositions is like asking me to prove equals. What does that mean? Prove what equals what? Really this is just another one of your schemes to be an arrogant prick for no reason to make yourself feel smart even though you’re obviously not, because you’re asking me incomplete questions.
But here, let me return the favor and ask you an equally stupid question, prove in math that x squared.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloodwork double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,376
Unless you just want me to make two statements up out of thin air, in which case -(-A) = A which is true because of double negation. That proved absolutely nothing about my knowledge or my intelligence in anything, but it’s the closest thing I have to answering your stupid ass question.
Mr. Bloodwork triple-posted this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,378
It’s not even that I’m annoyed that you asked the question, I’m just annoyed by how intentionally vague the question is so it’s not even clear how I should respond.
Are you asking me how to translate a statement in English into a statement in Boolean algebra?
Are you asking me how I determine whether two statements in Boolean algebra are equivalent?
Are you asking me to prove that it can be proven that two statements are equivalent in Boolean algebra?
It’s not even that you’re necessarily asking something unreasonable, it’s just the way you said it is unreasonable. If you want me to explain how to prove two statements are equivalent, then just ask me that. Don’t ask me, "How do you turn statement equivalence into boolean algebra?"
You could have asked me:
"How do you represent equivalence in Boolean algebra?"
"How do you turn English statements into Boolean algebra?"
"How do you prove two statements are equivalent in Boolean algebra?"
But nooooooo, you had to ask me a smart aleck and ask me a question so vaguely it could mean several different things and just expect me to know so you can correct me and make it look like you’re smarter than I am to people who read this who don’t know what the hell we’re talking about to stroke your own ego rather than to actually discuss anything meaningful.
Are you asking me how to translate a statement in English into a statement in Boolean algebra?
Are you asking me how I determine whether two statements in Boolean algebra are equivalent?
Are you asking me to prove that it can be proven that two statements are equivalent in Boolean algebra?
It’s not even that you’re necessarily asking something unreasonable, it’s just the way you said it is unreasonable. If you want me to explain how to prove two statements are equivalent, then just ask me that. Don’t ask me, "How do you turn statement equivalence into boolean algebra?"
You could have asked me:
"How do you represent equivalence in Boolean algebra?"
"How do you turn English statements into Boolean algebra?"
"How do you prove two statements are equivalent in Boolean algebra?"
But nooooooo, you had to ask me a smart aleck and ask me a question so vaguely it could mean several different things and just expect me to know so you can correct me and make it look like you’re smarter than I am to people who read this who don’t know what the hell we’re talking about to stroke your own ego rather than to actually discuss anything meaningful.
Mr. Bloodwork quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,379
If you said this:
@1,441,334 (A)
> How do you turn statement equivalence into boolean algebra?
It’s not clear what that means. Turn statement equivalence into Boolean algebra? You say two statements are equivalent using an equal sign. What are you asking there?
Then you give the clarification:
@1,441,352 (A)
> No, I understand representation and notation in boolean algebra.
Didn’t ask.
> How do you prove it with boolean algebra?
How do I prove "it" with Boolean algebra? You asked me to turn equivalence into Boolean algebra. How do I prove "it"? What does "it" refer to? You want me to prove "turning equivalence into Boolean algebra?" You can represent equivalence with Boolean algebra, that’s like asking me to turn "你好我是美国人!" into English and "prove it." I can turn it into English, "Hello I am American!" Prove what? Except it’s more ridiculous than that because you didn’t even give me any statement in any other representation that’s not Boolean algebra. So it’s more like if you said "How do you turn being American into English?" The answer is, "I am an American." Then you ask me to prove it, like what? That’s you being disingenuous and vague on purpose to try and make me look stupid and that pisses me off.
@1,441,334 (A)
> How do you turn statement equivalence into boolean algebra?
It’s not clear what that means. Turn statement equivalence into Boolean algebra? You say two statements are equivalent using an equal sign. What are you asking there?
Then you give the clarification:
@1,441,352 (A)
> No, I understand representation and notation in boolean algebra.
Didn’t ask.
> How do you prove it with boolean algebra?
How do I prove "it" with Boolean algebra? You asked me to turn equivalence into Boolean algebra. How do I prove "it"? What does "it" refer to? You want me to prove "turning equivalence into Boolean algebra?" You can represent equivalence with Boolean algebra, that’s like asking me to turn "你好我是美国人!" into English and "prove it." I can turn it into English, "Hello I am American!" Prove what? Except it’s more ridiculous than that because you didn’t even give me any statement in any other representation that’s not Boolean algebra. So it’s more like if you said "How do you turn being American into English?" The answer is, "I am an American." Then you ask me to prove it, like what? That’s you being disingenuous and vague on purpose to try and make me look stupid and that pisses me off.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,380
@1,441,375 (Mr. Bloodwork)
In every other thread you are the one who refuses to answer questions, not me.
It's not like you asked for clarification and I ignored you, you're assuming I will refuse to clarify even though I always do.
It's always you throwing a fit, switching topics when you can't come up with a response, and then resporting to personal insults.
You are delusional or lying if you are seriously saying that I'm the one doing that. You make up all kinds of excuses to justify why you won't answer, the other day you spent three hours coming up with excuses and then trying to say I wouldn't answer any questions even though I did each time.
Here's the answer to this
You prove x² = y by repeated addition since that's what multiplication is. 4 x 4 = 16 because you can take 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 to get 16. If you want to prove the addition, you could turn them into tallies and count, because that's all addition is.
Propositional logic has ways of showing two statements are equivalent (like "the boy kicked the ball" and "the ball was kicked by the boy") which is easy enough with language, but you are claiming this can be done with boolean algebra somehow? Interesting, but I don't see how.
And now, since you are pretending I'm the one who constantly playing dumb, if you want to continue this conversation, first we will have to go back to one of our past conversations and you'll actually have to resume some thread that you abandoned when you couldn't finish what you started and then started spamming a dozen hateful walls of text to distract from that fact.
You have confused propositional logic with computational logic in the past, so I am not wasting my time on this if you can't admit you lost another thread OR you can actually answer some question you avoided previously.
Remember when you thought rationalism meant that everything in the world could be deduced from first princples? I said that was obviously not my claim, and said like 10 times I synthesized it with empiricism the same way kant did? You couldn't even look up what he said about it, and kept pretending that I was making a claim about a priori deduction for everything.
You either aren't reading, or you can't understand what you read. You have countless theeads where you strawman to avoid engaging with what was really said.
You have a history of bad faith arguments and an exceptional failing when it comes to discussing logic and philosophy. I'm not getting dragged into another until you can answer one of the questions you refused in a other thread.
In every other thread you are the one who refuses to answer questions, not me.
It's not like you asked for clarification and I ignored you, you're assuming I will refuse to clarify even though I always do.
It's always you throwing a fit, switching topics when you can't come up with a response, and then resporting to personal insults.
You are delusional or lying if you are seriously saying that I'm the one doing that. You make up all kinds of excuses to justify why you won't answer, the other day you spent three hours coming up with excuses and then trying to say I wouldn't answer any questions even though I did each time.
Here's the answer to this
You prove x² = y by repeated addition since that's what multiplication is. 4 x 4 = 16 because you can take 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 to get 16. If you want to prove the addition, you could turn them into tallies and count, because that's all addition is.
Propositional logic has ways of showing two statements are equivalent (like "the boy kicked the ball" and "the ball was kicked by the boy") which is easy enough with language, but you are claiming this can be done with boolean algebra somehow? Interesting, but I don't see how.
And now, since you are pretending I'm the one who constantly playing dumb, if you want to continue this conversation, first we will have to go back to one of our past conversations and you'll actually have to resume some thread that you abandoned when you couldn't finish what you started and then started spamming a dozen hateful walls of text to distract from that fact.
You have confused propositional logic with computational logic in the past, so I am not wasting my time on this if you can't admit you lost another thread OR you can actually answer some question you avoided previously.
Remember when you thought rationalism meant that everything in the world could be deduced from first princples? I said that was obviously not my claim, and said like 10 times I synthesized it with empiricism the same way kant did? You couldn't even look up what he said about it, and kept pretending that I was making a claim about a priori deduction for everything.
You either aren't reading, or you can't understand what you read. You have countless theeads where you strawman to avoid engaging with what was really said.
You have a history of bad faith arguments and an exceptional failing when it comes to discussing logic and philosophy. I'm not getting dragged into another until you can answer one of the questions you refused in a other thread.
Mr. Bloodwork replied with this 1 month ago, 14 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,381
Unless you really want me to just prove the concept of "equivalence" but you didn’t give me any statements. So you want me to prove equivalence… like in general. You want me to prove in general that x=x. That’s a mathematical axiom, if I create two statements I already know are equivalent that defeats the whole point of working out algebraically if they’re equivalent or not. It’s the most absurd question.
Mr. Bloodwork double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,382
@1,441,380 (A)
I didn’t ask you to prove that x^2=y. I asked you to prove x^2. You didn’t ask me to prove x^2=y, you asked me to prove =. That’s what equivalence is, equivalence is =. You asked me to prove =. Do you know how stupid that is?
I didn’t ask you to prove that x^2=y. I asked you to prove x^2. You didn’t ask me to prove x^2=y, you asked me to prove =. That’s what equivalence is, equivalence is =. You asked me to prove =. Do you know how stupid that is?
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloodwork triple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,384
You asked me to prove equals without asking me what I’m proving equals what, you wanted me to prove the concept of equals. I have a right to be annoyed at you because you asked a question that doesn’t make any sense just so you could act superior for me not answering the question to your satisfaction, when you asked the most idiotic possible question you could come up with. Everything is equal to itself. That’s a mathematical axiom, it can’t be proven by definition, it just is true. It’s the reflexive axiom.
Mr. Bloodwork quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,386
And hey, if that’s not what you were asking, clearly given you can write all this crap, you were smart enough you could have just explained what the fuck you actually meant in the first instance instead of giving me a request so vague and then giving me a clarification that’s just as vague.
@1,441,380 (A)
> In every other thread you are the one who refuses to answer questions, not me.
>
> It's not like you asked for clarification and I ignored you, you're assuming I will refuse to clarify even though I always do.
>
> It's always you throwing a fit, switching topics when you can't come up with a response, and then resporting to personal insults.
>
> You are delusional or lying if you are seriously saying that I'm the one doing that. You make up all kinds of excuses to justify why you won't answer, the other day you spent three hours coming up with excuses and then trying to say I wouldn't answer any questions even though I did each time.
>
> Here's the answer to this
>
> You prove x² = y by repeated addition since that's what multiplication is. 4 x 4 = 16 because you can take 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 to get 16. If you want to prove the addition, you could turn them into tallies and count, because that's all addition is.
>
> Propositional logic has ways of showing two statements are equivalent (like "the boy kicked the ball" and "the ball was kicked by the boy") which is easy enough with language, but you are claiming this can be done with boolean algebra somehow? Interesting, but I don't see how.
>
> And now, since you are pretending I'm the one who constantly playing dumb, if you want to continue this conversation, first we will have to go back to one of our past conversations and you'll actually have to resume some thread that you abandoned when you couldn't finish what you started and then started spamming a dozen hateful walls of text to distract from that fact.
>
> You have confused propositional logic with computational logic in the past, so I am not wasting my time on this if you can't admit you lost another thread OR you can actually answer some question you avoided previously.
>
> Remember when you thought rationalism meant that everything in the world could be deduced from first princples? I said that was obviously not my claim, and said like 10 times I synthesized it with empiricism the same way kant did? You couldn't even look up what he said about it, and kept pretending that I was making a claim about a priori deduction for everything.
>
> You either aren't reading, or you can't understand what you read. You have countless theeads where you strawman to avoid engaging with what was really said.
>
> You have a history of bad faith arguments and an exceptional failing when it comes to discussing logic and philosophy. I'm not getting dragged into another until you can answer one of the questions you refused in a other thread.
Honestly, it’s just disrespectful.
@1,441,380 (A)
> In every other thread you are the one who refuses to answer questions, not me.
>
> It's not like you asked for clarification and I ignored you, you're assuming I will refuse to clarify even though I always do.
>
> It's always you throwing a fit, switching topics when you can't come up with a response, and then resporting to personal insults.
>
> You are delusional or lying if you are seriously saying that I'm the one doing that. You make up all kinds of excuses to justify why you won't answer, the other day you spent three hours coming up with excuses and then trying to say I wouldn't answer any questions even though I did each time.
>
> Here's the answer to this
>
> You prove x² = y by repeated addition since that's what multiplication is. 4 x 4 = 16 because you can take 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 to get 16. If you want to prove the addition, you could turn them into tallies and count, because that's all addition is.
>
> Propositional logic has ways of showing two statements are equivalent (like "the boy kicked the ball" and "the ball was kicked by the boy") which is easy enough with language, but you are claiming this can be done with boolean algebra somehow? Interesting, but I don't see how.
>
> And now, since you are pretending I'm the one who constantly playing dumb, if you want to continue this conversation, first we will have to go back to one of our past conversations and you'll actually have to resume some thread that you abandoned when you couldn't finish what you started and then started spamming a dozen hateful walls of text to distract from that fact.
>
> You have confused propositional logic with computational logic in the past, so I am not wasting my time on this if you can't admit you lost another thread OR you can actually answer some question you avoided previously.
>
> Remember when you thought rationalism meant that everything in the world could be deduced from first princples? I said that was obviously not my claim, and said like 10 times I synthesized it with empiricism the same way kant did? You couldn't even look up what he said about it, and kept pretending that I was making a claim about a priori deduction for everything.
>
> You either aren't reading, or you can't understand what you read. You have countless theeads where you strawman to avoid engaging with what was really said.
>
> You have a history of bad faith arguments and an exceptional failing when it comes to discussing logic and philosophy. I'm not getting dragged into another until you can answer one of the questions you refused in a other thread.
Honestly, it’s just disrespectful.
Mr. Bloodwork quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,387
And hey, you know what I was definitely correct about?
@1,441,375 (Mr. Bloodwork)
> Really this is just another one of your schemes to be an arrogant prick for no reason to make yourself feel smart even though you’re obviously not, because you’re asking me incomplete questions.
You already had that response locked and loaded ready to go no matter how I responded and I knew that, because nobody fucking asks to prove =. That’s a stupid question, it’s a question that doesn’t logically make sense as a question.
@1,441,375 (Mr. Bloodwork)
> Really this is just another one of your schemes to be an arrogant prick for no reason to make yourself feel smart even though you’re obviously not, because you’re asking me incomplete questions.
You already had that response locked and loaded ready to go no matter how I responded and I knew that, because nobody fucking asks to prove =. That’s a stupid question, it’s a question that doesn’t logically make sense as a question.
Mr. Bloodwork sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,388
Asking me to prove the concept of equivalence is like asking if we have 5 slices of cake in an empty room, how many slices does each person get in that empty room?
Mr. Bloodwork septuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,389
How do we divide 5 slices of cake evenly between 0 people? Oh but you won’t answer that so you must be stupid and I’m smart even though I can’t answer it either because it’s a stupid fucking question, but wow look the idiots who don’t know you can’t divide by zero will be impressed by my debate skills.
Mr. Bloodwork octuple-posted this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,391
Your entire strategy of debate itself is based on a logical fallacy. If you ask a question that someone else can’t answer, the fact that they can’t answer the question doesn’t mean that your answer is right. Your answer could still also be wrong. You don’t have any point about anything, you just want to prove your better than other people, and you’re not.
Mr. Bloodwork nonuple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,392
I mean, think about how stupid the way you debate is for a second. Think about the logical implications of your debate strategy that you think if someone can’t answer or gives the wrong answer to your question that makes you right.
Imagine two people, Bob and Sam.
Bob: I think 2 + 2 is 3. What do you think it is?
Sam: I think it’s 5.
Bob: Well that answer is wrong, therefore you’re stupid and I’m better than you, you can’t use logic. Since you are wrong, that means I am right and 2 + 2 is 3.
That’s not how anything has ever worked ever.
Imagine two people, Bob and Sam.
Bob: I think 2 + 2 is 3. What do you think it is?
Sam: I think it’s 5.
Bob: Well that answer is wrong, therefore you’re stupid and I’m better than you, you can’t use logic. Since you are wrong, that means I am right and 2 + 2 is 3.
That’s not how anything has ever worked ever.
Mr. Bloodwork decuple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,393
Now the only way that can possibly work is if there are only two possible options, true and false. But true and false are abstractions. Not everything can be reduced to true and false. Some questions can’t be answered as yes or no. And you ask a lot of questions that can’t be answered as yes or no and use that strategy when it doesn’t logically make sense.
Mr. Bloodwork undecuple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,394
Now see if you do it this way:
Imagine two people, Bob and Sam.
Bob: I think 2 + 2 is not 4. Do you agree 2 + 2 is not 4?
Sam: Yes, I agree. I also think 2 + 2 is not 4. (Only two possible responses, yes it is or no it’s not.)
Bob: Well that answer is wrong and there are only two possible answers. My answer is the same as your answer, therefore, I am also wrong.
Now that works, but that’s not 99% of conversations.
Imagine two people, Bob and Sam.
Bob: I think 2 + 2 is not 4. Do you agree 2 + 2 is not 4?
Sam: Yes, I agree. I also think 2 + 2 is not 4. (Only two possible responses, yes it is or no it’s not.)
Bob: Well that answer is wrong and there are only two possible answers. My answer is the same as your answer, therefore, I am also wrong.
Now that works, but that’s not 99% of conversations.
Mr. Bloodwork duodecuple-posted this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,397
And not everything has a binary true false answer. For example, if I say "Americans are more fat than Europeans." Is that true? Well, can you find a counter example of a European who’s fatter than an American? Yes, so it’s false. But no, you can find a counter example to the counter example and find an American who’s fatter than a European. Okay so what about the mean average weight of an American vs a European? But is everyone average? No. It’s more true than false, but it’s not 100% true. Most things are like that in some way.
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 16 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,402
I liked the part about reverse Polack notation
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,403
@1,441,397 (Mr. Bloodwork)
If this is a shtick, you really deserve props. If not, call a helpline today, they are usually open at all hours. Stimulant abuse can cause permanent damage to your nervous system, so putting off treatment will haunt you for the rest of your life.
Welcome to Minichan, I love you.
If this is a shtick, you really deserve props. If not, call a helpline today, they are usually open at all hours. Stimulant abuse can cause permanent damage to your nervous system, so putting off treatment will haunt you for the rest of your life.
Welcome to Minichan, I love you.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)