-
Banno
29.1kAnd the most complete text I've come across:
THE OPEN LOGIC TEXT
Home page.
Wish I'd seen this earlier. -
Agent Smith
9.5kProve P via Reductio Ad Absurdum.
(1) [assume]
.
.
.
( n )
(n + 1). [1 to n, CP]
(n + 2). [(n + 1) Imp]
(n + 3). [(n + 2) DN]
(n + 4). [LNC]
(n + 5). [(n + 3), (n + 4), DS] -
TonesInDeepFreeze
3.8k -
Agent Smith
9.5k
-
TonesInDeepFreeze
3.8kJust trying to make sense of RAA. — Agent Smith
Just look at the truth table.
Anyway, you didn't use RAA. -
Agent Smith
9.5k
-
TonesInDeepFreeze
3.8kI don't know what that emoji means. I take it though that it doesn't indicate anything substantive.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- Phil. Writing Challenge - June 2025
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum