Lukas F. Olsnes-Lea

Alder: 45
  RSS

Om Lukas F.

"Jeg er egentlig en høflig og straight person."

Ved Industrialist, Komponist og Forfatter: Bildet er en referanse til "blue chip" som jeg har fått tilskrevet mitt navn etter diverse bidrag opp gjennom tidene (og utenfor en viss tech-eyes ironi eller lign.).

Følgere

Logikk for Religiøse and andre

Publisert nesten 7 år siden

Det presenteres her Logikk for Religiøse and andre (seriøse). Vi kaster rett og slett idiotene på sjøen! Modal logikk, setningslogikk, vi kan snart VERDEN!

Det presenteres her Logikk for Religiøse and andre (seriøse). Vi kaster rett og slett idiotene på sjøen! Modal logikk, setningslogikk, vi kan snart VERDEN!

Her er det, med symboler og alt:

Now that Logic100 is here "I reiterate a bit": 

Description: 
This is the group for people who are interested in logics and who want to know more of it! We start with the 1st order logic, move up with Predicate logic, Modal logic and Quantified logic. The first book to read: The Logic Book by M. Bergmann et al. (McGraw-Hill Higher Education, any edition, 3rd, 4th, 5th). 

The recommended reading for now: 
The Logic Book by M. Bergmann et al., highly recommended to all people here, religious people... 

+ others: 
W. Goldfarb, Deductive Logic, Hackett, 2003. 
R. Jeffrey, Formal Logic, Its Scope and Its Limits, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill (Higher Educ.), 1991. 
G. E. Hughes, M. J. Cresswell, A New Introduction to Modal Logic, Routledge, 1996. (Not entirely recommended, but possible choice, watch up for "frame logics".) 
---- 
some Gödel logics, for both background, being a fellow religious person, but also for the Incompleteness notions: 
P. Smith, An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007, 4th printing (apart from the editions). 

Background of mine, heavier than you think, special circumstances of North Europe: 
Connected earlier on 100 points, but not... that they are listening, that the Logician considered, with LPOV from Quine to go... Wink

The worded outline to accustom the formalisation below: 
All humans are green. Some aliens, who may otherwise be normally skin coloured (brown, white, yellow...) are also green. And we get, as conclusion, the incredible that some aliens are humans (who are green). As this is incredible it is a fantasy! This is all ridiculous! In ending, we start with "all humans" so to avoid "injection" and "discharge" into the mix of logical deduction. 

Demonstration of a formal logics set-up. 

The deductions from above can be expressed this way, that may be more precise, but for the purpose of common language, then we leave it. Here is still: 
UoD: Everything. 
Humans: H 
Aliens: A 
Green: G (actually all green things) 

Not really part: 
(ForAll)H → (ForAll)G ( using the conditional → when we are combining properties leaves me the room to use the biconditional instead ≡ ) 
(ForAll)H ≡ (ForAll)G 
(Exist)A ≡ (Forall)H 
(Exist)A ≡ (Forall)G 

1 │ ∀H 
2 │ ∀H ≡ ∀G 
3 │ ∃A ≡ ∀G 
0 │------ 
( logical deduction in here. 2 biconditional eliminations and one biconditional introduction that ends up on the conclusion line. ) 
0 │----- 
4 │ ∃A ≡ ∀H (should really be the biconditional introduction, but we don't go there today, it says line 4, but reality when all formalities are in, it's should be a bit lower, allowing room for the numbers inside the deduction section of this logical argument) 

This is an example of a valid logical argument, but where logics is misused to make aliens appear both green and human which should be impossible in reality when human are certainly not green by natural skin colour, but rather brown, yellow, white or other... 

Urls for logics, 4, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_system 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(logic)#Deductive_arguments 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_logic#First-order_logic. 

While writing under Logic101, that is intended to play with the usergroup of Logic102, I also include the further suggestion for Logic102 here right away: 

Suggestion is given to anybody for setting up Logic102 with 
Graham Priest and Contradiction Logics placed soundly with the Austin Speech Acts and the Liars Paradox also solved. 

So with this, for the people who have passed (into) Logic101, we discuss all the rest, the most advanced/"advanced", all matters logical. Also the worries under God, the Bible and the insults from "academics" against good people's intuitions for the way FORWARD! 

We can set up this "chair" of reliability to serve under God and Truth, with the words over the Washington Monument, 

By God and Truth, Ethics, Science, Logics and Religion - with the ecumenical Holy Books, complying with the uttermost tip point of intelligence. 

Enjoy! Smile

Some links to start with under Logic100, from Wikipedia and SEP, by Stanford Univ.: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/ 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_and_Necessity 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_a_Logical_Point_of_View 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentential_logic 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification 

http://www.cc.utah.edu/~nahaj/logic/structures/systems/index.html - not Wikip. or SEP 

This should suffice for our 1st Order Logics this far. I also suggest that we drop "Higher Order Logics" because it may not provide "value" into logics investigations, to my knowledge, Liar's Paradox discussion included.

Under Logic100 - Logic101 - Logic102, The Liar's Paradox solved! Here: 

Olsnes-Lea wrote:Generally the liar paradox is shown to be meaningless (now). 

Liar's Paradox: I consider the Liar's paradox to be meaningless. If one ends up in a Liar's paradox in the first place, I suggest there's something wrong with the descriptions or explanations. So you should improve on these before one give's up on the situation and ends in Liar's paradox. It's also puzzling to me how Liar's paradox enters Godel's Incompleteness argument. I'll look more into Godel's Incompletenss, but this is not important to this writing. My opinion on Liar's paradox stands! 

2nd, still against the Paradox, "For people who think that to make a title "This is not a title" on a book (Raymond Smullyan, fx.) matters, you do not do much other than positing a Austin statement, that is, you commit a speech act, NOT logics!" 
Further, "To say that the total of field isn't provable, isn't good enough, because the field always remain contestable (until one can begin to look on the results consider what "in the World" that can possibly remain in the field to discover!"



Besides, DON'T LET THEM LIE TO YOU and without the academic excuse to do so too!

The Logical Operations, in making the logical deductions, by fx. the inside of the binding of The Logic Book: 
Reiteration 



Conjunction Introduction, 


P & Q 

Conjuction Eliminnation, 
P & Q or P & Q 
P or Q 

Conditional Introduction, see Wikip. 
Conditional Elimination, see Wikip. 
Negation Introduction, see Wikip., quite "complex" in terms of 1st order logics. 
Negation Elimination, see Wikip., same. 
Disjunction Introduction, see Wikip. 
Disjunction Elimination, see Wikip., same as with the Negation. 
Biconditional Introduction, see Wikip. 
Biconditional Elimination, see Wikip. 
Modus Tollens (MT), see Wikip. One of two logical operations in science, the other being Modus Ponens (MP), by Conditional Elimination! 
Disjunctive Syllogism (DS), see Wikip. 

13 Logical Operations accounted for, though not entirely visualised! 

Lastly, remember the difference of a premise that looks like this: 
God 


and a premise that looks like this: 
Necessary Ethics, by 10 Commandments, imply necessary God 
□E →◊G (beklager at tegnet ikke faller riktig på plass)

Another one to include, the Hypothetical Syllogism, no. 14. Plus some "time logics", in the legal sense, important to Human Being of Law by securing legal reasoning and securing procedures. 

Thus we have, Hypothetical Syllogism (HS): 
C ⊃ E 
E ⊃ T 
C ⊃ T as conclusion. 

Philosophy of Law: Legal Reasoning Closure Principle Philosopher, legal reasoning, being valid, has to comply with logical entailment and that this is minimally the claim that it does, apart from the (many book) examples that it does. (This is only a formal note, not the text for lawyers to actually having to sit and make these logical texts themselves, i.e., to burden them with much extra work.) 

The Closure Principle in essence consists only of these Hypothetical Syllogisms, be it the legal matters (now) or the world of chemical reactions under Epistemology. 

In addition, time in logics can be solved like this: 

Predicate logic, 

UoD 
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: Km (person m is suspected to have committed a murder) 
20:20 [...]: Lm (person m after the time of murder) 
20:20 [...]: Bm (person m before the time of the murder) 
so on... 

Sentential logic, 

UoD 
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: K (person m is suspected to have committed a murder) 
20:20 [...]: L (person m after the time of murder) 
20:20 [...]: B (person m before the time of the murder) 
so on... 

(Again, predicate logic is a bit more powerful...) 

Additionally, you can check up various time-logics yourself, sentential, predicate, modal... 

The Human Being of Law 
- Formalism (strongest - note) has formerly "won" the Human Rights, UDHR and ECHR alike, also to service globally! Please, see reference with the UN.

Modal logic: ◊, possible, and □, necessary, usually also entailing definite existence outside "theological reasoning", i.e., contingent and absolute existence plus possible world considerations, base to me, interesting for others... 
One strong paper of learning, more than 20 pages: Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity, 1972. Kripke has also written a book with this name. By this paper/book, Kripke has given the name to Kripkean logics, in refusing to "blend" modal logic with anything else (of modality, outside this paper/book). 

The paper can be found in many books like this one, The Philosophy of Language by A. P. Martinich, 5th ed., Oxford Univ. Press, 2008. 

A side note: A bit for the html-users: possible gives " &-#-9674-; " and necessary gives " &-#-9633-; " (minus the connectors).

By the splendid "On Denoting" reading by B. Russell, a Nobel laureate in literature, I present some Quantification Logic 

the marks: ∃, Existential mark, "one or several" (logical: inclusive "or"), and ∀, Universal mark, "for all, everyone of the set/group". 

We can continue with a slight remark for "Quantification Logic" that has also be known as 
Universal instantiation and 
Existential generalization in combination. 
See especially W. Goldfarb, Deductive Logic, Hackett, 2003, for this, rather than the better and, by recommendation, The Logic Book. 

For Quantification Logic there's a fine, classical reading by B. Russell, outside his "Teapot", that's named "On Denoting", 1905, also in the above reference of A. P. Martinich. 

Links: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Denoting 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_instantiation 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_generalization 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_quantification 

as much as God, Cardinal Virtues and Logics for the above, then also a WARNING as Cardinal Sins below: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy 

Note on using Alt + [the numbers] for the decimal codes, so that, from above, "possible" is easily obtained as logical mark by Alt + 9674. Alt + 8707 for the Existential mark and Alt + 8704 for the Universal mark, converting them into decimal html-code easily. Enjoy. 

---- 
(Edit:) 
Martinich book with "On Denoting" in it, with Amazon "see inside": http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Philosophy-Language-A-Martinich/dp/0195188306/.

Gå til innlegget

Ved Bibelen så er man forpliktet (de 10 bud, med Bibelen bevart og kriminalitet best bekjempet) til å si "Våpen (også ikke-dødelige) til befolkningen betyr en mulig, god religiøs nabo". Det fremgår ihvertfall ytterst klart at "Hitler anvisningen"...

"Adolf Hitler research - Causes to his rise: After much investigation into human nature, especially lying, and psychiatric issues, mSomatism too, I find that Adolf Hitler may have come to power mainly out of 2 causes:
1. The lack of personal weapons in the German population. I bet with Wild Wild West, that most U. S. Americans would have one or more personal weapons at this point, also rifles (lever action incl.). 
2. There would be the special rule in navel-gazing Germany (we're BIG, 40-50 millions, whatever) that would allow anybody who could gather a larger mass of people and claim power by this gathering, that he (man dominant, sorry women) would win Germany and become the leader of the nation.
Extra: at the same time, big Germany has its many affiliations elsewhere, also suppressed by the settlement with France that costed heavily. That they aired thoughts with the U. S. Americans, still with their weaponry and good at it too. Excited with some approval, the Germans begin to pick up on crazy ideas, still due to the lack of personal weapons in their population, allowing much insanity to happen, under under-paid police. So the Germans report back to homeland from New York, with only the crazy ideas, "because only these ideas work with us, or that, "you corrupt Germans... well, well, you can talk to them", while massive people showed up with an ever-idiot A. Hitler "because he was friend with everybody".
So with the failure to reason behind the personal weapons of many, and consequently without the power to assassinate the crazy people too, Adolf Hitler takes power and coarse political rhetoric takes hold, "the Jews are to blame", plus others, "we're the best in the World", "we are HUGE, we take over the World", or whatever.
Conclusion: not only corrupt forces like that. No, the lack of personal weapons has made the German people inclined toward the corrupt mind, and that other factors made this inclination/disposition cascade/gather force so for Germany to make many idiot-mistakes, many that lead to dubious invitations, to fx. Henry Ford and others, and set crazy-Nazi-Germany ready for WAR! Insanity evidently most clear! Agree?"

Norsk igjen: Ved " http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2013/07/new-theory-for-rise-of-adolf-hitler.html " så burde det bli ytterst klart hvis man systematisk begår de feil som innebærer å utsette naboen for manglende fysisk sikkerhet. Å jobbe for naboens sikkerhet betyr å arbeide for naboen som en god venn, ved "De 10 bud": gjeldende 8, 9 og 10! Betydelig altså!

Extra under the above, in addition to consider the active use of Neuro-values (4.0 by Scientology) to qualify the leaders as not being monsters in disguise:

To cut the usual "smile of idiocy" from European thinking, that the Universality Principle of Ethics as safety-webbing is easily DESTROYED if one sits there trying to say that the Principle and Insecurity to the neighbour (with a possible disposition of acceptance by torture to the neighbour) by refusing to accept the personal weapons (max. 5?) and non-lethal weapons to ALL, denying these bloated psychiatrists these aloof statements over sanity as THEY have allowed "vampires to walk in broad daylight", like "educated torturers" and serial-killers, 10 or more!

PS: Jeg er egentlig under et betydelig for denne tekst, "men, men, hva vet man om det..."

Gå til innlegget

Den metafysiske begrunnelse for religiøs tro - med de Platonske former Denne begrunnelse kan kjennes ved 6 argumenter, den private, Van Lommel studiene, den vitenskapelige bekreftelse av Descartes' fantom følelser, NDNID, telepati og Gud og 1 til!

Atheism is now DEAD!

The expressed reasoning for why Atheism is gone from the universities is this:
The logical foundation, in not anymore being able to object to the "whitelist" Religions:
They have no possibility to logically prove the impossibility of God.
They have failed to be the first to prove the Soul by the Van Lommel studies, to prove the Descartes' Phantom Feelings by fMRI, to prove the statistical existence of telepathy as the human direct perception in everyday life of Quantum Mechanics, seriously, i.e., they are scientifically inferior or, worse, scientifically dishonest, maybe pathologically so too!
They do not bother to display seriousness toward leadership by taking on Humanist Values, being serious to ethics.

These charges are serious against Atheism and will evidently be their bane too, whether "Positive Atheism", Atheism as private view of life, or "Negative Atheism", Atheism as (valid) objection to the Religions!

End note for them: they comply (only) with archaic Aristotelian "Natural Life Cycle", i.e., one type of Naturalism as "Life Philosophy" and in doing so fail the future opportunities for being credible leaders because they say explicitly that they are NOT Humanists which includes to be serious about ethics and human-to-human and human-to-nature interactions!

Even still, the Atheists need to realise that Humanism remains the only viable strategy for them and turn to it as soon as possible or face ridicule!

Final statement from myself, Olsnes-Lea (accountable)!

Norsk (jeg beklager forøvrig at dette kommer på engelsk her, men omstendigheter og dyktige folk på engelsk i dette landet kan sikkert hjelpe oss):

Mitt bidrag (og ved andres), gjør at alle verdens Religioner (bare de mest seriøse, under 30 eller noe, med Scientologi og Cheondoism minst og sist, men med kvalifisert "korpus"/"lærtekster") nå står sammen med matematikk og de platonske former i sannhet og stødighet. Det er egentlig bare å leve livet ut med Boka i hånden, så å si, så er Guds prøve til menneskeheten BESTÅTT!

Det noteres at dette er skrevet forskjellige steder først på nettet "her og der" og at Teologisk fakultet (UiO) har et umiddelbart offtentliggjøringsansvar ettersom de har blitt informert selv for en tid tilbake, noen titalls dager/måneder.

Ved informasjonsbehov og denne ekstra kommentar så skal det også være ytterst klart at jeg ikke har noen "spam" intensjoner eller "transgresjoner" ved denne melding slik som ondsinnede/dumme mennesker kan få seg til å skrive.

Jeg er også svært glad "i å ha kommet meg hjem til dere" med denne melding og håper dere er like glade og fulle av selvtillit med Bibelen som jeg er! "Hurra for Bibelen til Evig Tid!"

PS: Dette gjelder også over de tre herremenn: B. Russell, A. Camus and P. Sartre (3 Ateister). "Over all future Nobel Prizes in Literature, after the legacies of B. Russell, A. Camus and P. Sartre (3 Atheists), it should now be known: ..."

Extra:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_leadership .

Ethical leadership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Traditionally, the view of leadership has been that the main goal of leaders is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism .

Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the...


The university duties for ethical leadership GO DEEP! Understand this, please, of find yourself OUT!

Gå til innlegget

Mest leste siste måned

Lesetips

Les flere

Siste innlegg

Les flere