Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26

# Thoughts on this? I got stuck -_-

|
 Posts: 4,081 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/16/2012 6:59:49 PMPosted: 1 year agoA man goes past, riding on a horse, through a grass meadow. After he passes through the meadow, he sees a wall, and a dog sitting on a chair. The man approaches the dog, and the dog speaks to him. The dog tells the man answers to so many things, the dog is undoubtedly inerrant. A man notices a horse gallop by, and it goes behind the wall. The man does not notice anything about the horse apart from that there is a horse. The dog then tells the man "the horse is either red or black". The man thinks back to the principle of bivalence: Either P or not P is true. In addition, the man thinks back to the law of the excluded middle: It is necessary in every case to affirm or deny. Why should the man believe any option? Further, does the law of excluded middle still stand?Preferably with mathematical workings.
 Posts: 10 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/16/2012 8:15:12 PMPosted: 1 year agoDude what'ya talking about? I am stuck.We all secretly love the trolls.
 Posts: 2,953 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/16/2012 9:14:43 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 3/16/2012 6:59:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:A man goes past, riding on a horse, through a grass meadow. After he passes through the meadow, he sees a wall, and a dog sitting on a chair. The man approaches the dog, and the dog speaks to him. The dog tells the man answers to so many things, the dog is undoubtedly inerrant. A man notices a horse gallop by, and it goes behind the wall. The man does not notice anything about the horse apart from that there is a horse. The dog then tells the man "the horse is either red or black". The man thinks back to the principle of bivalence: Either P or not P is true. In addition, the man thinks back to the law of the excluded middle: It is necessary in every case to affirm or deny. Why should the man believe any option? Further, does the law of excluded middle still stand?Preferably with mathematical workings.It is a complex questions who's answer has no use or value. In other words it's a way of expressing the blatantly obvious in the most complex and obscure manner possible.
 Posts: 4,081 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/16/2012 9:17:57 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 3/16/2012 9:14:43 PM, sadolite wrote:At 3/16/2012 6:59:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:A man goes past, riding on a horse, through a grass meadow. After he passes through the meadow, he sees a wall, and a dog sitting on a chair. The man approaches the dog, and the dog speaks to him. The dog tells the man answers to so many things, the dog is undoubtedly inerrant. A man notices a horse gallop by, and it goes behind the wall. The man does not notice anything about the horse apart from that there is a horse. The dog then tells the man "the horse is either red or black". The man thinks back to the principle of bivalence: Either P or not P is true. In addition, the man thinks back to the law of the excluded middle: It is necessary in every case to affirm or deny. Why should the man believe any option? Further, does the law of excluded middle still stand?Preferably with mathematical workings.It is a complex questions who's answer has no use or value. In other words it's a way of expressing the blatantly obvious in the most complex and obscure manner possible....thanks for that. The point was it is a question put forth. So far I've worked out with a mate that it (may) mean:"So essentially the question is, as to whether there are any alternatives besides P or P's negation?"
 Posts: 5,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/17/2012 10:33:20 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 3/16/2012 6:59:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:A man goes past, riding on a horse, through a grass meadow. After he passes through the meadow, he sees a wall, and a dog sitting on a chair. The man approaches the dog, and the dog speaks to him. The dog tells the man answers to so many things, the dog is undoubtedly inerrant. A man notices a horse gallop by, and it goes behind the wall. The man does not notice anything about the horse apart from that there is a horse. The dog then tells the man "the horse is either red or black". The man thinks back to the principle of bivalence: Either P or not P is true. In addition, the man thinks back to the law of the excluded middle: It is necessary in every case to affirm or deny. Why should the man believe any option? Further, does the law of excluded middle still stand?Preferably with mathematical workings.I thought this was supposed to be a riddle and my answer was going to be 'dogs don't talk' lol :/To be honest, I have no idea... Grape is a philosophy major, if he's lurking, maybe he can answer this.
 Posts: 1,745 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/17/2012 12:08:13 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 3/16/2012 9:17:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 3/16/2012 9:14:43 PM, sadolite wrote:At 3/16/2012 6:59:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:A man goes past, riding on a horse, through a grass meadow. After he passes through the meadow, he sees a wall, and a dog sitting on a chair. The man approaches the dog, and the dog speaks to him. The dog tells the man answers to so many things, the dog is undoubtedly inerrant. A man notices a horse gallop by, and it goes behind the wall. The man does not notice anything about the horse apart from that there is a horse. The dog then tells the man "the horse is either red or black". The man thinks back to the principle of bivalence: Either P or not P is true. In addition, the man thinks back to the law of the excluded middle: It is necessary in every case to affirm or deny. Why should the man believe any option? Further, does the law of excluded middle still stand?Preferably with mathematical workings.It is a complex questions who's answer has no use or value. In other words it's a way of expressing the blatantly obvious in the most complex and obscure manner possible....thanks for that. The point was it is a question put forth. So far I've worked out with a mate that it (may) mean:"So essentially the question is, as to whether there are any alternatives besides P or P's negation?"The dog doesn't have to tell the truth, right? It could be any color, then. nac
 Posts: 5,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/17/2012 12:14:34 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 3/17/2012 12:08:13 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:At 3/16/2012 9:17:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 3/16/2012 9:14:43 PM, sadolite wrote:At 3/16/2012 6:59:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:A man goes past, riding on a horse, through a grass meadow. After he passes through the meadow, he sees a wall, and a dog sitting on a chair. The man approaches the dog, and the dog speaks to him. The dog tells the man answers to so many things, the dog is undoubtedly inerrant. A man notices a horse gallop by, and it goes behind the wall. The man does not notice anything about the horse apart from that there is a horse. The dog then tells the man "the horse is either red or black". The man thinks back to the principle of bivalence: Either P or not P is true. In addition, the man thinks back to the law of the excluded middle: It is necessary in every case to affirm or deny. Why should the man believe any option? Further, does the law of excluded middle still stand?Preferably with mathematical workings.It is a complex questions who's answer has no use or value. In other words it's a way of expressing the blatantly obvious in the most complex and obscure manner possible....thanks for that. The point was it is a question put forth. So far I've worked out with a mate that it (may) mean:"So essentially the question is, as to whether there are any alternatives besides P or P's negation?"The dog doesn't have to tell the truth, right? It could be any color, then.Well, it says the dog is undoubtedly inerrant. So assuming he's telling the truth, then you've got "p or q" and that's the only possible thing...
 Posts: 5,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/17/2012 12:28:43 PMPosted: 1 year agoI think this is what you mean:Ax - undoubtable inerrancyBx - RedCx - Blacka - Dogb - HorseIf Aa then Bb and CbAa -> (Bb & Cb)If not Bb and Cb, then not Aa~(Bb & Cb)~(Aa), modus tollensIs that the answer to your question?
 Posts: 989 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/17/2012 8:59:49 PMPosted: 1 year agoI don't understand the question. For classical logic, P v ~P is a theorem. For some other forms of logic it is not.
 Posts: 4,081 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/19/2012 2:48:42 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 3/17/2012 12:28:43 PM, nonentity wrote:I think this is what you mean:Ax - undoubtable inerrancyBx - RedCx - Blacka - Dogb - HorseIf Aa then Bb and CbAa -> (Bb & Cb)If not Bb and Cb, then not Aa~(Bb & Cb)~(Aa), modus tollensIs that the answer to your question?The question is not whether it is "red and black" or not, but whether it is "red" or "not-red" AKA "black", and what the most reasonable stance would be.
 Posts: 4,064 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/19/2012 5:08:07 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 3/19/2012 2:48:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 3/17/2012 12:28:43 PM, nonentity wrote:I think this is what you mean:Ax - undoubtable inerrancyBx - RedCx - Blacka - Dogb - HorseIf Aa then Bb and CbAa -> (Bb & Cb)If not Bb and Cb, then not Aa~(Bb & Cb)~(Aa), modus tollensIs that the answer to your question?The question is not whether it is "red and black" or not, but whether it is "red" or "not-red" AKA "black", and what the most reasonable stance would be.black is a default colour when thier is not enought light. not to be confused with not-ness. Which is even absense of that. And not knowable, and thus non-sense literally in that there is no-sense it which it is."All the same, it could be that I am mistaken, and what I take for Gold and Diamonds is perhaps nothing but a bit of copper and glass." "I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also how much the Judgments made by our friends should be distrusted when these Judgments in our favor." Rene Descartes
 Posts: 4,064 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/19/2012 5:10:27 AMPosted: 1 year agoSo not red doesn;t mean black,. we don't even have an idea of not-ness because it wouldn't even be an idea. The idea we tend to get when we talk about it is blackness. but what we really trying to say is that which is said in the next sentence. " ".do you get what I mean?"All the same, it could be that I am mistaken, and what I take for Gold and Diamonds is perhaps nothing but a bit of copper and glass." "I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also how much the Judgments made by our friends should be distrusted when these Judgments in our favor." Rene Descartes
 Posts: 4,064 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/19/2012 5:13:43 AMPosted: 1 year agoAnother reason is that (red and black) Synthesis to get dark red."All the same, it could be that I am mistaken, and what I take for Gold and Diamonds is perhaps nothing but a bit of copper and glass." "I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also how much the Judgments made by our friends should be distrusted when these Judgments in our favor." Rene Descartes
 Posts: 4,064 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/19/2012 5:16:04 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 3/17/2012 8:59:49 PM, Grape wrote:I don't understand the question. For classical logic, P v ~P is a theorem. For some other forms of logic it is not.The Fool: Difference logics is nonsense. Its a fail caused by the move to an objective language being logic. I hope to over throw that in the next few years."All the same, it could be that I am mistaken, and what I take for Gold and Diamonds is perhaps nothing but a bit of copper and glass." "I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also how much the Judgments made by our friends should be distrusted when these Judgments in our favor." Rene Descartes
 Posts: 4,064 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/19/2012 5:24:03 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 3/19/2012 5:13:43 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:Another reason is that (red and black) Synthesis to get dark red.I am pretty sure this was the answer. I was a false dichotomy."All the same, it could be that I am mistaken, and what I take for Gold and Diamonds is perhaps nothing but a bit of copper and glass." "I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also how much the Judgments made by our friends should be distrusted when these Judgments in our favor." Rene Descartes