Lukas F. Olsnes-Lea

Industrialist, Komponist og Forfatter
12

Logikk for Religiøse and andre

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

Publisert: 7. feb 2014

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/.

Kommentar #1

Lukas F. Olsnes-Lea

12 innlegg  150 kommentarer

Logiker "fra USA"

Publisert over 7 år siden

I USA kaller de meg konsekvent Logiker så dere er nok i Den hellige ånds trygghet ved min egen hånd uansett.

Siden når da? Vel, var det ikke Skolem og Løwenheim (omlyds-o) og slå dem sammen som en + noen andre bidrag slik som i ... (Heh-heh-heh-heh)

Kommentar #2

Markus Westermoen

0 innlegg  357 kommentarer

Publisert over 7 år siden

En idiot er etymologisk en som ikke er interessert i politikk. Jeg vil påstå at interesse for logikk ikke impliserer interesse for politikk. Man kan derfor ikke logisk slutte at en som ikke er interessert i logikk er en idiot. 

Jeg undres derfor over den noe polemiske inneldningen, og hva som egentlig er målet med dette "innlegget".

Forøvrig hadde jeg en opplevelse jeg sent vil glemme, det var en dobbeltforelesning om logikk, om premisset "P" og konklusjonen "Q", om "modus ponens" og "modus tollens". Da rakte en godt voksen dame hånden opp og spurte - "Hva skal egentlig Per med den Kua?"

Jeg mistenker at ikke alle stod på eksamen.

Kommentar #3

Lukas F. Olsnes-Lea

12 innlegg  150 kommentarer

Publisert over 7 år siden

Til min bruk av idiot, er det nok å si at bruken gjenspeiler en person som velger å se seg i navelen fremfor å relatere seg til Verden og at dette er politisk nok i og for seg.

Det at Religiøse velger å bygge opp sine potensial som mennesker med kunnskap for å kunne agere bredere på denne måten er en liknende skjæring over idioten. For øvrig vil jeg takke for ditt morsomme og vennlige svar Markus Westermoen og siden henvise til Fjodor Dostojevskij for lesing om idioter.

Jeg er dithen sikker på at fremtidens logikk tilhører de Religiøse at jeg har begynt å småfeire allerede fordi de navlebeskuende null er så frustrerende små som mennesker at det blir lett å slå de i nær sagt hvilken konkurranse som helst.

God kunnskap. God lesing. God helg. Ha det! :-)

Kommentar #4

Lukas F. Olsnes-Lea

12 innlegg  150 kommentarer

Feilaktig "and" uansett hvor morsomt...!

Publisert over 7 år siden

Hei dere

Jeg bare innrømmer feilaktig bruk av "and" uansett hvor morsomt dette kan se ut og hvor skjærende det kan være til "andre" som jo i mine øyne burde bli null et sted i fremtiden.

Vel, vel... Denne feil er nå gjort eksplisitt, dvs. "vi vet om den", ikke at den er skrevet ifra underbevisstheten.

"Logikk for Religiøse og andre" er da den riktige versjonen for oss alle på jorden! Takk for idag!

Lesetips

Les flere

Siste innlegg

Les flere