But this can't be true since it leads to contradictions. — Pippen
I just assume the natural numbers 1,2 and 3 — Pippen
What you do in 3. is using the AND-introduction. My question is if I could instead introduce an implication "A -> ~A". I doubt that. I doubt that you can just with two premises P1 and P2 follow P1 -> P2 and vice versa. — Pippen
One needs to maintain the distinction between terms, which represent objects in the domain of discourse, and formulas, which (speaking roughly) have truth values.Here basically 1 equals 2 and 3 which is false. — Pippen
5. Since 1.-2. seem true, 3. must be false, and so it follows: LH <-> RH, but that's absurd because it basically says that my left hand can only exist with my right hand and vice versa which is obviously wrong. — Pippen
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.