you didn't reply to anything i said. It feels like you didn't read it, or at least not seriously.

This is the simplest logic. There is nothing much to it. Why you cannot see my point is beyond common sense.

It gives me impression that if you were found that your point was wrong, then you seem to be reverting back to ad hominem, or you haven't read what I said replies. That is why I feel that you and your pal the wonderer are inauthentic.

OK we had enough discussions on it. I will leave you to it. Good luck.

If it's basic logic, you should be able to provide me a single source that agrees with you, that denying the antecedent is not a fallacy but is a valid syllogistic argument. I've provided you many sources, can you show me one? You say it's in a textbook - if you have such a textbook, please give me a photograph of the page that says that you can do that in Modus Ponens. I would love to read it.

If you've read what I said, then please reply directly to the second-to-last paragraph, where I asked questions. You said authentic interlocutors answer questions, so there are some questions there for you.

Please remember. The classic symbolic logic works on the forms only. No contents. I have several Logic books at home. And they all say the same thing. You must get any symbolic logic books, and have a look into them. It will all be there.

I await a photograph of those pages.

Edit. Wondering what the odds are that the photographs of this textbook are going to be showing Modus Tollens instead of Modus Ponens.

P --> Q
¬Q
=====
¬P

Modus Tollens, above, is of course valid, and of course different from his argument.

I shall give a try as per time permits.

Hell, I don't even want him to admit that. — flannel jesus

Admitting it to us is of little consequence. Ability to admit it to himself could be hugely consequential for him.

No doubt. I'm excitedly awaiting these textbook photographs.

https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3t|=~3e
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3e|=~3t

He will never, ever concede :rofl:

https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/truth-tables/truth-tables.html

unfortunately he seems not to trust anything on the internet...

Which makes conversations on the internet about philosophy and truth kinda inherently problematic. I don't get it lmao.

You think therefore you exist? -> T (Assumption)
P -> Q = T (assumption)

When you stopped thinking, you don't exist? (jesus has admitted it is incorrect) -> F
Not P > Not Q  => F
T F -> F
P -> Q = F
Therefore you think therefore you exist is FALSE.

Please note T F are truth values of the propositions.They are not  propositions themselves.
Well, this is the last time I am trying to make you understand.  If you still can't, then I don't think there is hope.   It is shocking that 3 of yous are all in the same cave of confusion.  No one seems to be able to dig yous out the cave.

When you stopped thinking, you don't exist? -> FNot P .> Not Q  => F (jesus has admitted it is incorrect)
Therefore T F -> F
P -> Q = F
You think therefore you exist is FALSE. — Corvus

You're just rephrasing the same thing you already said. We'll see the photographs from your textbooks. I have alread presented documentation from Oxford and Stanford that you have rejected, so we'll see what you can find in your textbooks.

You think it's shocking that 3 of us have "the same confusion" - it will be a lot less shocking when you post the photographs from your textbook. Everything will be cleared up. Please post what your textbooks say about Modus Ponen, and optionally post the pages that talk about Denying the Antecedent, if you can find that.

No one seems to be able to dig yous out the cave. — Corvus

Except for Stanford University and Oxford University, for starters.

Except for Stanford University and Oxford University, for starters. — flannel jesus

Now it gives me an impression FJ is a robot machine set up for keep replying automatically without even knowing what it is talking about. :roll: :chin:

You said 'no one can dig me out of this cave'. Now, bad mixed metaphore aside -- shouldn't it be hole? -- I have many pieces of support in this thread. Oxford university, Stanford university, Encyclopedia Britannica, Lionino and Wonderer. Meanwhile, you quite literally have 'no one'. The 'no one' applies to you, not me. Your only outside support, other than your own opinion, is so far unprovided in this thread. It's ficticious as far as anyone else knows.

So talk is cheap, from you. Talk is real cheap. Let's see the pictures of the textbooks. Until then, you're just running your mouth with 0 support, while I've provided quite a lot of support for my position, including an actual concrete example. You have no documentation, no other philosophers here agreeing with you, and no concrete example.

Talk is cheap. Don't run your mouth, get the pictures.

Now it give me an impression FJ is a robot machine set up for keep replying automatically without even knowing what it is talking about. :roll: :chin: — Corvus

Because you being wrong is inconceivable?

Nice try, but he doesn't know what the three dots or the arrow mean.

You obviously don't even understand what the core problem is. The core problem is proving "Cogito ergo sum" is correct or incorrect.

It shows you are also one of the copy-paste internet info brigade without even knowing what it is, but not even knowing what we are trying to prove here.

This has to be trolling. This is by far the stupidest page on the forum currently.

You are biting off more than you can chew. The problem at hand is much simpler than proving or disproving cogito ergo sum - we can get to that later, we have a simpler problem at hand. The simpler problem is, "What does Modus Ponens actually say? Does it say what YOU think it says, OR am I, Wonderer, Lionino, Stanford and Oxford correct when we say that your presented argument is a fallacy?"

That's it. AFTER we deal with that simpler problem, we can look again at cogito ergo sum. Let's keep it simple.

You have some textbooks that prove your point, so let's see them.

All I can say is, if you are that bothered with something, please read my post again for proving why "Cogito ergo sum" is logically incorrect.

I don't think that is "all you can say". I don't even think that's a worthwhile thing to say. The only worthwhile thing you can post at this point is the pictures from your textbooks.

You obviously don't even understand what the core problem is. The core problem is proving "Cogito ergo sum" is correct or incorrect.

It shows you are also one of the copy-paste internet info without even knowing what it is, but not even knowing what we are trying to prove here. — Corvus

I'm afraid you have shown the core problem here to be your misunderstanding of logic. There is no sense in discussing proving something with you when you can't distinguish formal fallacies from valid logic.

Would you like to make a bet?

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

I want to bet that you won't find a single textbook that will affirm that this is a valid argument. I want to bet that when you look up Modus Ponens, you will get

P --> Q
P
=====
Q

You might also be able to find Modus Tollens

P --> Q
¬Q
=====
¬P

But not a single textbook of yours will confirm the top argument. They may present the top argument as a fallacy, but not as a valid argument.

I think the terms of the bet should be intellectual humiliation. What do you say? Bet?

You have admitted that When you don't think, you don't exist is incorrect.
That proves, When you think, you exist is also logically incorrect.
We didn't even have to go into the symbolic logic.
Why is it so hard to see it?

All this talk and no pictures.

I don't think it needs any more time wasting mate.

You're right, just pictures. You said you would post pictures. Don't waste time, post pictures.

Unlike you, I'm actually willling to look at sources other people provide for their arguments. You won't look at my sources, fine, let's look at yours. Post pictures. I'm not too cowardly to look at your sources. Let's see em.

I have given you the full proof using both symbolic logic and ordinary language. If you can't see it, then that is fine. I don't feel there is a point for any more discussion here on this particular point.