Jump to content

jamespotter

Member
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

jamespotter last won the day on December 29 2018

jamespotter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-1 Slipping...

About jamespotter

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I guess that's fair. I'm sure you could spin it as "we're less objectionable than their policy shiz from the perspective of this framework" though.
  2. "The Classical Liar Sentence is the self-referential sentence, This sentence is false. It leads to the same difficulties as the sentence, “I am lying.” Experts in the field of philosophical logic have never agreed on the way out of the trouble despite 2,300 years of attention." https://www.iep.utm.edu/par-liar/
  3. The previous K I cut wasn't good enough. So here's the whole new file: Shell this statement is a lie this statement is either “something other than true or false” (i.e. the claim that you made that the thing was to pass through the first filter) or not true A) if the liar's revenge statement is not true, then it's true if the liar's revenge statement is true, then it's something other than true or false, or not true C) if the liar's revenge statement is something other than true or false, then it's true Extension: Why we win We win so that you can stop thinking about the liar's revenge.
  4. AT-Paraconsistency: "either paraconsistency or not paraconsistency not paraconsistency Ergo, neither paraconsistency nor not paraconsistency" recurse that formula and repeat for each individual element of paraconsistent logic. I fail to see how explosion doesn't == paraconsistency. Edit: Added a link to "Affirm the Other" to Lacan. spivak.doc
  5. A. Disagreeing with well-established x is the engine of knowledge. Otherwise we would know everything! My arg is that axioms (in logic, rules) per se=naive set theory, and no axioms=quodlibet. BTW, I'm disagreeing with well-established most things. Like Aristotle, who is kind of important to the history of Western philosophy, with his radical idea that we can explain things. B. I hate arguing with people about this. In response to "ZF without choice" or "other mathematics", I refer you to A. I'm not going to answer every derivation, in round you would have to commit to something, at which point I would apply the top-level. You may not win the round (because ZFC is in point of fact well-established), but in my opinion you would be rightish. Worth something. C. You can't formulate axioms without recourse to the axiom of unrestricted comprehension because axioms are naive sets (see A) D. Group any and all objections. See A. Read the file or don't. E. I respect you.
  6. From your Quora link: "How was “solved” the paradox? Dropping one of the previous items/assumptions. 1. (ii) “every multiplicity can be captured by a set” — In the standard ZFC ( Zermelo Fraenklen + Choice) axiomatic system." "In mathematics, the axiom of choice, or AC, is an axiom of set theory equivalent to the statement that the Cartesian product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice Translation: We banned Russell's Paradox, which is what my argument "the axiom that rules in only those axioms that rule themselves out" answers. “The joke is really about the Banach-Tarski theorem, which says that you can cut up a sphere into a finite number of pieces which when reassembled give you two spheres of the same size as the original sphere. This theorem is extremely counterintuitive since we seem to be doubling volume without adding any material or stretching the material that we have. The theorem makes use of the Axiom of Choice (AC), which says that if you have a collection of sets then there is a way to select one element from each set. It has been proved that AC cannot be derived from the rest of set theory but must be introduced as an additional axiom. Since AC can be used to derive counterintuitive results such as the Banach-Tarski theorem, some mathematicians are very careful to specify when their arguments depend on AC.” https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/6489/can-you-explain-the-axiom-of-choice-in-simple-terms “It was questionable, therefore, whether this axiom is even consistent with the rest of the axioms of set theory. Gödel proved this consistency in the late 1940's while Cohen proved the consistency of its negation in the 1960's (it is important to remark that if we allow non-set elements to exist then Fraenkel already proved these things in the 1930's).” https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/132007/why-is-the-axiom-of-choice-separated-from-the-other-axioms MBG differentiate between "classes" and "sets", so one speaks of the class of all sets. Begs the question of what type class is, class or set? The former just defers the contradiction, the latter doesn't solve it. Also, has axioms.
  7. Thank you. I appreciate your comment. ZFC is post-hoc, and the axiom "the axiom that rules in only those axioms that rule themselves out" requires an axiom about axioms, which results in an infinite regress. The axiom of comprehension doesn't answer "axioms fail". The Library of Babel is just a description of explosive logic, with a history of how people might react to it. Also it synergizes with the Bleiker evidence. Girard's Paradox seems to answer ZFC, but I'll be damned if I understand how. My understanding is "what type is 'type'", which if ZFC is a simplification of type/category theory is responsive. Is "type" type "true"? Then does type "true" contain itself? BTW, if they read Lacan defense, ask whether the set of all sets contains itself (there is no universal prediction engine if it doesn't, because that engine would have to account for itself. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30326/impossibility-of-a-laplace-kind-demon ) http://liamoc.net/posts/2015-09-10-girards-paradox.html (def cut this article. I can't believe that I haven't) "Musings and Speculation I find it very curious that two very different approaches to formalising mathematics end up with much the same stratified character, and for different reasons. Perhaps this Russell-style heirarchy is, kind of like the Church-Turing thesis, a fundamental characteristic of any sufficiently expressive foundation. Something discovered rather than invented. In the words of Scott [1974]:
  8. In reply to your first point, the only notation I'm using is the disjunctive syllogism, which I gave an example of. The principle of explosion is based solely on disjunctive syllogism. The solution is the law of the excluded middle: "Either Socrates is mortal, or it is not the case that Socrates is mortal." has a third answer. What is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle The reason you have to affirm the excluded middle is: "a or not a not not a a" doesn't make sense in any paraconsistent framework! In reply to your second point, that is what I used to think. Why isn't "logic is false according to logic" just a Godel statement? Surely you don't rule out Godel statements (this statement is a lie)? Finally, you still have to rule out disjunctive syllogism. My argument, in a nutshell, is that you don't get rules. To answer Alistair, it pertains to debate because of the links in the files. You can also link the short story to IR epistemologies (I attached some more Bleiker cards) and the Lacan seminar to just about anything. bleiker_cards.doc
  9. In paraconsistent logic it doesn't. "In classical logic, the logic developed by Boole, Frege, Russell et al. in the late 1800s, and the logic almost always taught in university courses, has an inference relation according to which A, ¬A ⊢ B is valid. Here the conclusion, B, could be absolutely anything at all. Thus this inference is called ex contradictione quodlibet (from a contradiction, everything follows) or explosion (emphasis mine). Paraconsistent logicians have urged that this feature of classical inference is incorrect. ... So if it is invalid to infer everything from a contradiction, then this rule, called disjunctive syllogism, A ∨ B, ¬A ⊢ B, must be invalid, too." https://www.iep.utm.edu/para-log/ An example of disjunctive syllogism: The breach is a safety violation, or it is not subject to fines. The breach is not a safety violation. Therefore, it is not subject to fines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_syllogism So you have your response when you get your next speeding ticket: "You are not speeding, or you are subject to the fine. Your are speeding. Therefore you are subject to the fine." Is wrong because one logical paradox doesn't equal logic doesn't exist! Ironclad. The description of Russell's paradox comes from this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-russells-paradox/
  10. Supplement: Now with Links! Russell_supplement.pdf supplement.odt russell_supplement_two.pdf supplement_two.odt
  11. Claims: 1. Naive set theory fails. This means you can't group things and then make rules about how these groups function. 2. Any attempt to rule out this paradox relies on making a group (inside and outside) and then making a rule about how these groups function (the inside is allowed, and the outside is not) 3. Given that Russell's Paradox is "only those barbers who shave men who do not shave themselves", one can restate Russell's Paradox as the axiom "only those axioms which rule in axioms which rule themselves out are allowed". To the answer "your axiom is silly" I say "says who? some more ruley rule? Guess what I'm going to say" 4. Rinse and repeat as they make rules about their rules, etc. Say "we said rules are paradoxical, so what did they do? Make a rule, which isn't responsive." 5. ECQ-prove a paradox, and you can prove anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion 6. That includes time travel. Yet I don't have a time travel machine, which is not predicted by the principle of explosion 7. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, from a proof-theoretic standpoint, if not according to generally accepted wisdom. See: no time travel machine. (you don't have to make points 6 and 7, the K functions fine without them) 8. "This Logic is false according to this logic" is a Godel statement. Godel statements are real so there is no perfcon. (is "this statement is a lie" true or false?) Pull it off and it's kryptonite to policy wonks with a judge that votes for the team that won the debate Questions?
  12. Then read as much of this: http://www.arts.ucsb.edu/faculty/reese/classes/artistsbooks/The Library of Babel.pdf as you can get through. Against policy affs, that is. Try to finish it without highlighting it down (I haven't timed myself yet)
  13. jamespotter

    Russell K

    I guess I'm not allowed to post to Evazon. However, I don't know how to delete posts. Here's the Russell K Russell_K.pdf russell_shell.doc
  14. So I thought that this was like, the part of the forum where you could post free files. I was wrong. I also don't know how to delete this post. Here's the new location: Russell_K.pdf russell_shell.doc
×
×
  • Create New...