For those interested there is more information here:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/

I have a question, since intuitionistic logic stems from a mathematical. Axiom, does it not mean from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem that it cannot prove everything itself?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Dissappear?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What I mean is it says what is true if you can prove it and if not then not priveable. The condition of truth is dependant on provability in a sense.

90

What I mean is it says what is true if you can prove it and if not then not priveable. The condition of truth is dependant on provability in a sense. — BB100

So how come you apply (in the other thread) truth to the 3 laws of logic, which are unproven?

I mentioned before that The three laws are neccessarily come from meaning of truth, what is.

If you need to understand intuitionistic logic better in order to argue against it effectively, how do you already know that you will want to argue against it once you do better understand it? Perhaps understanding it better will lead you to realize that it makes perfect sense on its own terms, even though it is inconsistent with classical logic--which, by the way, absolutely no one denies. Everything that conforms to intuitionistic logic also conforms to classical logic, but certain results of classical logic do not obtain in intuitionistic logic. In that sense, it is a more modest formal system, like non-Euclidean geometry relative to Euclidean geometry--one fewer axiom.

Is this another Wittgensteinian moment? Language games complicating an already confusing and overcrowded landscape of ideas?

I mentioned before that The three laws are neccessarily come from meaning of truth, what is. — BB100

Well that is entirely illogical.

Hey does anyone have the time to help me out with a simple logic problem really quick???

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Yes, that is what I mean.

The simple fact that proof by contradiction is not accepted as valid, even though the result must be true. Inherently the axiomatic system is focused on proof results that specifies an object. I know that the system accepts Law of Excluded Middle over a finite set boundaries, but not over an infinity. Last reason is because the system is based on pire mathematical concepts. The Three Laws are based independant to such and thus between them is the implications of The three laws are more overarching.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Sorry, Grammar is still not the best.

Truth is defined and I assume is defined as what is, or another way of saying, what exists.

What exists must be in compliance to the three laws. You can extrapolate the three laws from the very concept of the meaning exist.

First I would ask whether that money is tradable in the currency exchange system, then say that question requires emperical evidence to solve.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Sorry, still need to check before posting to see If I wrote something correctly.

But, "The stone in your backyard", I would say needs to be said as There is the stone in your backyard. This would be a truth. Just stone would not provide any distinction of what you are saying.

Infinity is more so a concept, so it would not be strange that something that is true such as in a finite system , to not apply in a non finite system. Infinite Hotel being an example, full but can hold more people.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.