I feel like this is a really sad way of admitting that you looked through your logic books and can't find any indication that Modus Ponens does what you say it does. Is that what this is? Please be honest.

If I had the proof you say you have, and I had a willing listener like you have, willing to look at that proof, I'd just... post it. I'd post the picture of the textbook.

And if I looked in my textbook and found no proof of my belief, and I had too much pride because I'd dug myself into too deep of a hole by being so relentlessly condescending (which, if you look in the conversation history, you will see that you started with the condescension, and not me) - if I looked in my textbook and found no proof, I would post exactly what you just posted. "There's no point talking anymore." That's exactly what I'd post if I was too proud to admit I'm wrong.

So either you post the picture from your textbook, or I know that you're too proud to admit that you can't find it.

No, it is nothing to be sad about. People disagree in the real world, and you must learn to accept it.

We agree to disagree on the point, and that is fine by me. I really do hope to see you understanding the points though. But if not, so be it.

We don't have to agree to disagree. You have a textbook. I like textbooks. I trust textbooks. If you are correct, you can convince me.

That's my strength - I can be convinced by things.

If I'm correct, can I convince you? I'm a lot less sure of that.

I love to be corrected. Your textbook photographs would correct me. You love to correct people - you've been arguing for pages that I'm wrong, so you must want to correct me.

If I love to be corrected, and you love correcting people, then let's both get what we want by you posting the pictures from your textbook. It's a win-win. I'd love to see you win in this way.

"Agree to disagree" just sounds like another way of wording "I looked in my textbook and couldn't find what I said was going to be there". So... if that's where this ends, then I'll know you looked and didn't find it.

Please also understand the core problem here was proving whether "I think therefore I am." is logically correct. All the rest was just introduced as a process for the proof.
Your insisting on requesting photographic evidence of the textbook ... etc, sounds very bizarre to me.

If you can't see the simplest logical proof shown to you with the explanation for the point, then that is fair enough. There is really nothing anyone can do about that to change your belief.

There is. Post the textbook. I've literally described to you the exact thing you can do to change my belief. Show where in your textbook Modus Ponens is

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

You are copping out out of fear. Let go of your fear.

If you had true intellectual courage, you'd pledge to go and post the pictures from the textbook about Modus Ponens no matter what the textbook says. Even if it agrees with me. I would love to see you have that kind of courage.

You have the proof, you have the very thing that could either change my mind, or maybe, if you have any balls, change your mind. We don't have to agree to disagree, because you literally have the proof.

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. — Corvus

No it doesn't prove that. Your next move is to say "Why not". Because burden of proof is not on me.

The last 5 pagees should be purged by some mod.

"When you don't think, you don't exist is incorrect.
That proves, When you think, you exist is also logically incorrect."

"When you don't run, you don't move is incorrect.
That proves, when you run, you move is also logically incorrect"

Obviously, because you can't recall what you said 1 page ago, you will say those two are different. But:

The classic symbolic logic works on the forms only. No contents — Corvus

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

No it doesn't prove that. Your next move is to say "Why not". Because burden of proof is not on me. — Lionino

I don't think you showed any arguments for it doesn't prove that, did you?

Obviously, because you can't recall what you said 1 page ago, you will say those two are different. But: — Lionino

Classic symbolic logic works by showing how the arguments transit from one to the other mainly using the variables. Sometimes you would introduce negations, AND, OR connectives in the process of proving. But in the process, if you noticed the critical point where it disproves the core points, then it will deduce the conclusion from the statement which is obviously true or false. This is the way the logical proving works. You seem to be totally ignorant of how the proving procedure works. It is like those folks who are into the habitual copying and pasting truth tables and some symbols in the internet, and insist that is the only way MP works what have you.

If you say, you think therefore you are, is the only way for you exist, then when you are not thinking, you stop existing. That is what you mean logically. Don't you find that absurd?
Do you stop existing, when you are asleep, or watching movies or listening to the music with no thoughts?

How about the walls in your room. The wall don't think. Does it mean they don't exist?

If you say, you think therefore you are, is the only way for you exist, then when you are not thinking, you stop existing. That is what you mean logically. Don't you find that absurd? — Corvus

Please save this argument for after you post the pictures from your textbook. Your argument will hold more weight then - or it will disintegrate, depending on what's in the book.

Please save this argument for after you post the pictures from your textbook. Your argument will hold more weight then - or it will disintegrate, depending on what's in the book. — flannel jesus

Sorry but I am discussing this point with . Will get back to you after our discussion, if there is any more point for us to discuss on this particular point. If I don't, then you know the answer.

If I don't, then you know the answer. — Corvus

Is this you confirming that you won't post the pictures if they don't confirm your beliefs? I truly hope that you can be better than that

Is this you confirming that you won't post the pictures if they don't confirm your beliefs? I truly hope that you can be better than that — flannel jesus

I am trying to focus on the discussion with without getting interrupted by the unusual requests and irrelevant posts.

you think therefore you are, is the only way for you exist — Corvus

Holy shit. Obviously nobody said that. That doesn't even make sense. "I think therefore I am" is an inference. How can an inference be the only way for something to exist?

Holy shit. Obviously nobody said that. That doesn't even make sense. "I think therefore I am" is an inference. How can an inference be the only way for something to exist? — Lionino

Exactly :nerd: No wonder it didn't sound tightly logical necessity.

Post the pictures

Is this you confirming that you won't post the pictures if they don't confirm your beliefs? I truly hope that you can be better than that — flannel jesus

It can be helpful to understand that some posters post seeking narcissistic supply, and admitting having been wrong is never part of that 'plan'. In such cases, it's good to be able to recognize that one has made a mistake oneself, in thinking that one is dealing with a reasonable person.

Post the pictures — Lionino

I cannot find the page relevant to this point in my logic books. I came home, sat down at the desk, and reviewed the whole point again. I still feel that Cogito Ergo Sum seems logically not sound.

P = I think, therefore I exist.
Q = I don't think, therefore I don't exist.

P - > Q
Not Q (Q is FALSE)
therefore Not P (P is FALSE)

One's own existence is known by perception and sensation rather than just thought, no? Surely you must keep existing even when not thinking. Is this is the case, then I think therefore I am is not logically sound.

Mad props for telling the truth, that you looked and can't find it. I respect that, and did not expect it.

Do you think it's possible that it's not a coincidence that I predicted you would not find your argument supported in your logic books?

Nope. You are wrong in your unfounded presumption again. I am not going to take out my logic books on my relaxing weekend time, just to prove what is self evidently true.

The explanation above in my post above is clear enough for this simple point for anyone to understand what it means. I hinted you to read some proper textbooks instead of keep getting confused based on ChatGPT's nonsensical info.

The core problem we were trying to prove is so simple and clear. Why do you try to make it complicated introducing the irrelevant points into it?

you introduced your modified "modus ponens" all on your own. Despite your failure to find any supporting pages, you're STILL using your own fallacious version of "modus ponens" in your recent posts.

I'm not making it complicated, I'm making it simple. The Fallacy of denying the Antecedent is exceptionally simple. By focusing on this, I'm simplifying the conversation.

You said earlier that it could be found in any logic textbook. You apparently have multiple logic textbooks, and you can't find it in one.

It's time for you to stop deceiving yourself.

Here's a modus Tollens for you:

If it's true that you could find it in any logic textbook, you would be able to find it in your logic textbooks.
You can't find it in your logic textbooks.
Therefore, it's not true that you can find it in any logic textbook.

That's what valid logic looks like.

It is not MP or MT which is important here. They are just tools.
You seem to making out as if MP MT are some end point human race must achieve.

The core problem is to prove or disprove "Cogito Ergo Sum." is logically sound.
For that, normally folks wouldn't even need any Logic.

I only introduced the simplest Logic because you seem to be having difficulty in understanding anything on proving. But for some reason, you seem to be excited and obsessed with the definition of MP.

Well, if you cannot even understand what the core problem is about, what is the point of you learning about MP or MT or the rest of Logic? Please tell me what is the point you don't see in my post above, and I will try to explain it to you again if it looks any worthwhile.

Please tell me what is the point you don't see in my post above — Corvus

The part where you're continuing to apply the exact same argument, which you erroneously call modus ponens, even though you know it's a fallacy.

P = I think, therefore I exist.
Q = I don't think, therefore I don't exist.

P - > Q

Here.

You have the textbooks. You keep presenting this argument, but you aren't presenting the pictures. Put your money where your mouth is. If you can't produce the pictures, this argument is just a fallacy. It's called Denying the Antecedent, you have all the resources you need to understand why it's a Fallacy, and you haven't provided any resources to defend the position that it's not a Fallacy.

You have one job. The pictures. You can win the argument if the textbook says what you insisted it says. There's really no point talking about anything else, until you produce the pictures. Are you brave enough?

As I made clear already I am not going to flick through a Logic book to whatever ... no. There are more important thing to do in life.

If you cannot see my point in the written expressions, then there is no point I am afraid.

P: I think therefore I am. (This is the one you want to prove correct or not).
Q: I don't think therefore I am not. (This is implied from P logically oK???)
So, P ---> Q

But you know Not Q
Therefore Not P

It is so clear, what is it that you can't see ?

This is implied from P logically oK?? — Corvus

No, not okay. It's the same Fallacy. Why are you insisting on the same Fallacy when you know it's not in your textbook? When you know Stanford university and Oxford university are explicitly calling it a Fallacy?

You've failed to find it in your book, and yet you're still presenting the argument like it's valid. Grow some balls and admit your mistake please. Denying the Antecedent is a Fallacy.

I haven't failed to find the book. I didn't even try to look at any book.

P->Q then
Not P -> Not Q

Why is this fallacy?

If I'm holding a flower, I'm holding a plant.
I'm not holding a flower.
Therefore I'm not holding a plant.

Does that argument make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me. There are a hell of a lot of plants that aren't flowers that I could be holding.

If my pet is a mouse, then my pet is a mammal.
My pet is not a mouse.
Therefore my pet is not a mammal.

Good argument, you think?

But you are not holding the plant. You could be holding a plant.
You are not even able to difference between "a" and "the".

what in the world are you talking about?

what in the world are you talking about? — flannel jesus

You are totally ignoring the plant you were talking about in the proposition, and suddenly starting to making random inference of holding some other plant. Do you not even know what you were talking about?

You should get some sleep. Your nonsense is degrading to worse than usual. Maybe tomorrow you'll be ready to drop the fallacies.