Then give your proof. — Leontiskos
A -> B. But that's not imply. that's "Necessarily leads to."
— Philosophim
Wrong. Material implication does not require necessity. — TonesInDeepFreeze
and "imply ¬A" as the proposition being True means A is False — Lionino
You misunderstand. — Philosophim
So what?
'->' is ordinarily regarded as standing for material implication that does not require necessity. — TonesInDeepFreeze
↪Philosophim
Look in any textbook on symbolic logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Are you serious? You don't know how to prove it yourself? — TonesInDeepFreeze
“opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time” (Metaph IV 6 1011b13–20) — Aristotle on Non-contradiction | SEP
curt — Leontiskos
opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time — Aristotle on Non-contradiction | SEP
But that is not "necessarily implies' or 'necessarily leads to'. — TonesInDeepFreeze
That is the law of non-contradiction. What I said is a more formal way of saying the same. — TonesInDeepFreeze
and "imply ¬A" as the proposition being True means A is False
— Lionino
Yes, this was my concern. Tones requires the assumption, as I thought he must. — Leontiskos
"imply ¬A" as the proposition — Leontiskos
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.