I, even I, would celebrate, in rhymes inept the great...

António Pedro Marques · 17 Oct 2014, 14:34 · from 2014-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ant=C3=B3nio_Pedro_Marques?=)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:34:09 +0100
Subject: (urth) I, even I, would celebrate, in rhymes inept the great...
In-Reply-To: <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0136BB at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>
References: <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D013291 at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>
	<543F4C03.6040006 at clueland.com>
	<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D013391 at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>
	<5440AF56.4020005 at clueland.com>
	<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D01365E at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>
	<CAF1072w4sOuKQDkcpmZOhcxChKVudv9REvzND81WfUKp6SaQsA at mail.gmail.com>
	<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0136BB at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>
Message-ID: <C816D573-F7EB-4BE2-88C0-6F52D1231D5C at gmail.com>

I'm not anything of the sort. Just because the inadequacies of tools you thought all powerful are pointed out to you, it doesn't follow that you can go around calling others names.

Do you have formal higher training in Math?


No dia 17/10/2014, ?s 15:03, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" <NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

> Ant?nio Pedro Marques is at least unabashedly post-modern, refusing to be chained by logic.
>  
> You, Marc Aramini, keep confusing logic with science.  Mathematics is built on logic.  If the premise becomes false, then you no longer apply modus ponens.  You don?t need to lose your head.  Every even number is divisible by two.  What if the original premise is ?This number is odd.? Then the theorem doesn?t apply.  It doesn?t disprove modus ponens.
>  
> Rick Norwood
>  
> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Marc Aramini
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:40 AM
> To: The Urth Mailing List
> Subject: Re: (urth) I, even I, would celebrate, in rhymes inept the great...
>  
> These are linguistic truths built into the definitions themselves ...
> the statement if A then B is either true linguistically
> or it isn't, in which case the premise was wrong.  It doesn't mean much else.
> ie "If I have no head I will die." technology advances, and now I can live without a head - the original premise then becomes false.  Doesn't mean anything.
>  
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson <NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> wrote:
> Modus ponens is unprovable.  You have to start somewhere.  Is it possible that modus ponens is false?  Of course it is possible.  I may be a madman, and modus ponens may not say what I think it says.  I may be the only creature in the universe, and modus ponens may really mean, "Thou art God."  But these objections can be raised in any discussion whatsoever, and after a while most people stop raising them.  If I am sane, and if modus ponens says what I think it says, then it seems to me bedrock on which to build.  Further, if there are cases where A implies B, A is true, and B is false, then that ends the discussion, because every statement is both true and false, and in that case there is no point in saying anything at all.
> 
> Rick Norwood
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Jeffery Wilson clueland.com
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 1:56 AM
> To: The Urth Mailing List
> Subject: Re: (urth) I, even I, would celebrate, in rhymes inept the great...
> 
> On 10/16/2014 7:07 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote:
> > Jeffery Wilson:  I do say A is A.  That's called the reflexive property of equality.  And, yes, I've read the Lewis Carroll bit.  Even wrote a poem about it.
> 
> If you already know that the modus ponens is unprovable, and are familiar with reflexive equality which is axiomatic, why are you bothering to hold up modus ponens as an example of an absolute truth?
> 
> --
> Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >
> A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141017/603b6ff3/attachment-0001.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net