Thanks, but you can save yourself the trouble of finding such references, if they are for my benefit.

It would be wonderful to listen to Descartes and Wittgenstein discussing certainty.

Wow, so on top of not having ever read Descartes and feeling the gaul to comment on it, on top of not knowing how to use logic, you also don't know how time works? If you scroll up, you will see I requested that you translate my phrase before you deflected with that "question" of yours. — Lionino

Well, you keep running away from the question with smoky gibberish. How time works? Why do you suddenly want to know how time works? Please elaborate further.

Amongst teachers, there is an expression reserved for some students, diverted by their circumstances to such a degree that nothing can be taught until the circumstance is addresses. Those with parents going through a vicious separation, or with severe health conditions, or who simply missed breakfast and are too hungry to concentrate. they are said to be "unavailable for learning".

For some reason, unclear to us, @Corvus is "unavailable for learning".

It is a pattern that can be seen in other threads in which he is involved. He puts up a pretence of paying attention and of understanding the discussion, then after a few days throws up a wall of nonsense. For some reason unknown to us, he is not able to take on new information.

For a teacher the only workable remedy is to address the circumstances. To give the student breakfast, treat their condition or approach the parents. We can't do that for Corvus.

Further conversation becomes like a child hitting the dog's cage with a stick. It will bark and growl back at you; fun, but progress will not be made.

Further conversation becomes like a child hitting the dog's cage with a stick. It will bark and growl back at you; fun, but progress will not be made. — Banno

Seriously this is your problem Banno. You think you are a teacher, and the rest of the members are the students. But you have no knowledge of the field that you claim to be knowledgeable at. Your claims are full of misunderstandings. When it is pointed out, you get upset, and then you put out unfair and untrue ad hominem.

I tried to treat you with my best fairness and friendliness this time. But it is over the limit. Your insincerity, dishonest and pretensions are too obvious in your post. It is a regrettable affair to be honest.

The lowest common denominator. What we always get in the end.

Welcome to the machine

woof, woof, growl. — Corvus

woof, woof, growl. — Banno

Calm down Banno. This is The Philosophy Forum. :nerd:

For some reason unknown to us, he is not able to take on new information. — Banno

Banno, we all know that you keep scanning other folks messages for sussing out the irrelevant grounds for your attacks. If you are honest, you will see and admit that I have never spoken to anyone with out of context vulgarities under any circumstances. I always kept my control in respecting others in the discussions.

There are a few of your cliques who have been throwing irrelevant out of context insults with the vulgar languages umpteen times. It just shows that they don't have basic respect for others, and disregard the manner of the discussions. But you never point out the problems of these folks because they are in your cliques.

With just this one evidence, your bizarre post is an unfair and untrue criticism of yours based on your psychological bias. I hope that you could realise the reality and be able to see the true situation.

How time works? — Corvus

You see, the number in the bottom left corner shows whether a message came up after or before.

you keep running away from the question with smoky gibberish — Corvus

I did not run away all the times you posted nonsense, in fact I refuted you several times. And I refuted you again, your rendition of Descartes is wrong. Make some effort to actually read what he wrote.

Not sure what that means.

The issue with a student who is "unavailable for learning" is that they can quickly unsettle a whole class - or in this case a thread. Throwing paper planes or insults, gratuitous comments, and so on. It's not possible to pursue the lesson, or topic, at hand while they are present. Confrontation doesn't help, since it only serves to emphasis the disorder. Removal, if only in order to sort their circumstances, is advised. But if that is not possible, one can try making explicit to the other students what is occurring, encouraging them not to give attention to the misbehaviour.

or giving attention, even to excess, to the students who are on task, making their day pleasant despite the recalcitrant.

You see, the number in the bottom left corner shows whether a message came up after or before. — Lionino

I have been away all day, and just returned to see your message to me. I have no clue what you were talking about on how time works. But I will catch them up when I have some spare time.
You see I don't read any other posts apart from which are directed to me.

I did not run away all the times you posted nonsense, in fact I refuted you several times. And I refuted you again, your rendition of Descartes is wrong. Make some effort to actually read what he wrote. — Lionino

When I asked you about the If Red Light then Drive logic for your agree or disagreement on it, you said it was order, not Logic. It is a logic. It gave the impression that you were trying to avoid the answer.
That logic is a critical one. We will examine that tomorrow. I will try to read what you sent me in full in due course.

Further conversation becomes like a child hitting the dog's cage with a stick. It will bark and growl back at you; fun, but progress will not be made. — Banno

The positivists were right. Philosophy is nonsense. We should all learn coding instead.

When I asked you about the If Red Light then Drive logic for your agree or disagreement on it, you said it was order, not Logic — Corvus

Yes, "drive away if there is a red light" is an order (drive away) with a conditional (if there is), it has nothing to do with statements of the type p→q. It is a bad example. Choose another one.

I wonder if folk are interested in summarising where they think we are at, with regard to the title question?

The positivists were right. Philosophy is nonsense. We should all learn coding instead. — Lionino

:wink: The understanding of logic of some here who do coding leaves me doubting this. I taught coding for years, in the hope that it would improve my student's comprehension of and intuition for logic. It may have been to no avail.

It seems that folk are able to follow the sequent in a deduction, but are unclear as to what the elements represent. Hence not recognising examples of p⊃q, or thinking commands are statements.

Not sure what that means. — Banno

We have a winner on aisle 4

Yes, "drive away if there is a red light" is an order (drive away) with a conditional (if there is), it has nothing to do with statements of the type p→q. It is a bad example. Choose another one. — Lionino

You have changed my original example back to front to make it sound like order. Please read my original example given to you again, and confirm.

The example sentence in the logical form is not order at all. It can be expressed different way for the same meaning, if you have linguistic problem understanding the sentence. For example,

If it is red light, then it is safe to drive.
If it is red light, then it is legal to drive.
If it is red light, then it is ok to drive. ... etc.

The argument is made up into the formal sentence form in the argument.

It is only an order, if some one tells you to your face, "When it is is red light, drive", or as you have changed it "Drive away, if there is a red light."

I did not run away all the times you posted nonsense, in fact I refuted you several times. And I refuted you again, your rendition of Descartes is wrong. Make some effort to actually read what he wrote. — Lionino

Even if a sentence is order form, it can be formalised and executed in the logic.
If you read anything about mathematical logic, then you would have known that many of the computer programming languages operate on the instructions executed under the Boolean logic in the order form.

For example, if total order >= 10$, then offer FREE shipping.

Therefore, your claim that sentences in order form are not Logic is not correct.

I really want to see you answer Corvus scenario about the red lights. I'll post his scenario again.

If red light, then drive away. R -> D
If not red light, then don't drive away. Not R -> Not D is False

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892642

You can interpret this as "the law says"

The law says if the light is red, you must drive away.
It's false that the law says, if the light is not red, you must not drive away.

"If red light, then drive away. R -> D" Obviously this is supposed to imply "R→D" means "if red light, drive away" (if... then is grammatically incorrect by the way), but it doesn't at all in this context like this. It is an order (in other languages, drive would be in the imperative mood) with a conditional, it is like "If I had gone earlier, I would have arrived on time" (in other languages, had would be in the subjunctive mood), it doesn't translate to R→D just because there is an "if".

If we are making a circuit that takes an input and translates to an output, and I am really forcing it here, where there is a photoreceptor and if it gets a 1 value, it makes the miniature car move (1). I can't know what Corvus means by "False" because he doesn't mean [sic] at all. I am assuming it means 0.
In this case, being that R→D is the same as (¬R∨D), and that ¬R→¬D is the same as (R∨¬D), red light then drive away is the case (1,1), which makes ¬R∨D (1), not red don't drive away is (0,0), so R∨¬D is also 1, aka not 0, aka not false as Corvus claims.

This made-up scenario he came up with is not even equivalent to his original nonsense. His original nonsense is an argument where the two premises are contradictory. His new nonsense is an "argument" where the conclusion denies the first premise because the conclusion does not follow from the premises at all. It is a fantasy he made up.

Again, he has no clue what he is talking about, ever. It is nonsense upon nonsense on an unwillingness to learn basic propositional logic. He is LARPing that he has read books on logic. Someone who cannot even understand that he can't deny the antecedent does not have the skill to even read a high school book on set theory — not an easy task by itself.

By the way, your bio does not mean what you think it means.

By the way, your bio does not mean what you think it means. — Lionino

What do you mean? Could you please explain on that point?

What do you mean? — Corvus

It means Google translate does not work properly.

Again, he has no clue what he is talking about, ever. — Lionino

Yeah I agree with that, but if you want to show him that you probably have to agree on an example to talk about first. You don't like the one he gave, which I understand, it's genuinely a very strange example.

He previously said "if I'm swimming, then I'm wet". I think that's a fantastic example of implication to look at.

It means Google translate does not work properly. — Lionino

Why suddenly talk about the bio written in Latin? What do you think it means?

Ok, just for funsies, I found an Introduction to Logic textbook online.

https://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf

End of page 24:

‘If A then B’ means that if A is true then so is B. So we know that if the
antecedent A is true but the consequent B is false, then the conditional ‘If
A then B’ is false. What is the truth value of ‘If A then B’ under other
circumstances? Suppose, for instance, that the antecedent A happened to be
false. ‘If A then B’ would then not tell us anything about the actual truth value of the consequent B

Suppose, for instance, that the antecedent A happened to be
false. ‘If A then B’ would then not tell us anything about the actual truth value of the consequent B.

Denying the antecedent of a statement of implication tells you nothing about the truth value of the consequent.

What do you think it means? — Corvus

I don't think it means anything. I know what it means. And it is not what you were thinking.

I think that's a fantastic example of implication to look at. — flannel jesus

I have tried that a thousand times already with "If it rains, the floor is wet". Banno also. It is pointless.

Here's another logic book

https://reader-service.z-library.se/reader-pdf/387cccf294949913ee2e9a2ef4687ceafd21b6effc11b65a211c579cd2817362?download_location=https%3A%2F%2Fz-library.se%2Fdl%2F2327764%2F8360ad&page=139

Page 130

If Jack bet on Eclipse, then Jack lost his money. Jack did not bet on
Eclipse. So Jack did not lose his money.
That's another horrible fallacy (traditionally called denying the antecedent).
Translating and running a truth-table test confirms this.

I don't think it means anything. I know what it means. And it is not what you were thinking. — Lionino

But why do you talk about the Bio, in the middle of talking about order and logic? It would help in understanding, if you let us know what you think it means.

I have tried that a thousand times already with "If it rains, the floor is wet". Banno also. It is pointless. — Lionino

Mentioning about Banno or the other folks in the discussion won't help for clarification on the point.
What did you say about "If it rains, the floor is wet."? What is your point? This is the first time I am reading you talking about it.

But why do you talk about the Bio, in the middle of talking about order and logic? — Corvus

Because your bio says something other than what you meant. If anything, it means something funny.

This is the first time I am reading you talking about it. — Corvus

Another case of selective amensia in this thread.

Because your bio says something other than what you meant. If anything, it means something funny. — Lionino

I still cannot see any relevance of my Bio to this thread and what we have been discussing. Something other than what I meant? How do you know what I meant? :)

Another case of selective amensia in this thread. — Lionino

I did discuss the argument case with Banno, but never with yourself.
Are you not mistaking me for someone else?
Please tell us what you said about it in summaries and points.