|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Sep 3, 2008 13:55
Modus Ponens:
If P, then Q.
P. Therefore, Q.
The "If" announces a truth value. So "if P" requires the consideration
of another element or object through which a truth value may be
ascertained. If we eliminate the ontological and existential status with
which the term "if" baptises its objects, then modus ponens reduces to
P and R, then Q
P. Therefore, Q
And eliminating the subjective "then" and "therefore" we have modus ponens
P and R and Q
P and Q
CONCLUDING
Plainly, modus ponens is invalid. The truth value operator "if" ushers
in another object, while "P." does not. The argumentative form may be
correct, but modus ponens describes two different object events - "P and
R" and "P".
|
| Show full article (1.59Kb) |
|
| | 8 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Sep 3, 2008 18:32
On Sep 3, 1:55 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> Modus Ponens:
> If P, then Q.
> P. Therefore, Q.
>
> The "If" announces a truth value. So "if P" requires the consideration
> of another element or object through which a truth value may be
> ascertained. If we eliminate the ontological and existential status with
> which the term "if" baptises its objects, then modus ponens reduces to
>
> P and R, then Q
> P. Therefore, Q
>
|
| Show full article (2.22Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Sep 3, 2008 21:27
On Sep 3, 1:55Â pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> Modus Ponens:
> If P, then Q.
> P. Therefore, Q.
>
> The "If" announces a truth value.
It does?
> So "if P" requires the consideration
> of another element or object through which a truth value may be
> ascertained.
Why?
> If we eliminate the ontological and existential status with
> which the term "if" baptises its objects, then modus ponens reduces to
>
> P and R, then Q
That makes no sense. You just left an implied "if" behind, so
you are saying "If P then Q" is equivalent to "If P and R (something
if gives us) then Q." This is the source of your sophistry.
|
| Show full article (2.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Sep 4, 2008 05:11
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:55:26 +0100, John Jones wrote:
> Modus ponens, in that case, is a convoluted form of the transcendentally
> real notion that reference and self-reference are the same. Accordingly,
> (Godellians take note) any proof which employs modus ponens and which
> also relies on the distinction between self-reference and reference is
> scuppered from the outset.
============================
If today is Tuesday, then I will go to work.
Today is Tuesday.
Therefore, I will go to work.
============================
it isn't P and R then Q. More like 'only when P=R then Q'
Today must equal Tuesday before Work happens.
you seem to be forcing Today as always equaling Tues so always equaling
work. 'If' implies that today does not always equal Tuesday.
If I may be wrong, then I will stop
I may be wrong
therefore, I will stop!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Sep 8, 2008 11:44
> On Sep 3, 1:55 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>> Modus Ponens:
>> If P, then Q.
>> P. Therefore, Q.
>>
>> The "If" announces a truth value.
>
> It does?
>
>> So "if P" requires the consideration
>> of another element or object through which a truth value may be
>> ascertained.
>
> Why?
>
>> If we eliminate the ontological and existential status with
>> which the term "if" baptises its objects, then modus ponens reduces to
>>
>> P and R, then Q ...
|
| Show full article (2.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Sep 8, 2008 12:05
On Sep 8, 11:44Â am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>> On Sep 3, 1:55 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>>> Modus Ponens:
>>> If P, then Q.
>>> P. Therefore, Q.
>
>>> The "If" announces a truth value.
>
>> It does?
>
>>> So "if P" requires the consideration
>>> of another element or object through which a truth value may be
>>> ascertained.
>
>> Why?
>
>>> If we eliminate the ontological and existential status with
>>> which the term "if" baptises its objects, then modus ponens reduces to
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Sep 8, 2008 14:29
>
> Well statements of the form
>
> If P then Q are true iff P implies Q.
> By definition. So assume P, which
> is in this case:
>
> "this statement is true"
>
> Clearly if the statement is true then
> Q is true as well, since the statement
> merely states that Q is true, if the
> statement is true. Therefore the truth
> of the statement implies that Q is true,
> by, once again, modus ponens.
|
| Show full article (1.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Sep 8, 2008 15:17
On Sep 8, 2:29Â pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>> Well statements of the form
>
>> If P then Q are true iff P implies Q.
>> By definition. Â So assume P, which
>> is in this case:
>
>> "this statement is true"
>
>> Clearly if the statement is true then
>> Q is true as well, since the statement
>> merely states that Q is true, if the
>> statement is true. Â Therefore the truth
>> of the statement implies that Q is true,
>> by, once again, modus ponens.
>
> I don't know why you used an example of self reference. Self-reference
> is always indistinguishable from reference. In that case, "this ...
|
| Show full article (3.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Sep 9, 2008 13:46
> On Sep 8, 2:29 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>>> Well statements of the form
>>> If P then Q are true iff P implies Q.
>>> By definition. So assume P, which
>>> is in this case:
>>> "this statement is true"
>>> Clearly if the statement is true then
>>> Q is true as well, since the statement
>>> merely states that Q is true, if the
>>> statement is true. Therefore the truth
>>> of the statement implies that Q is true,
>>> by, once again, modus ponens.
>> I don't know why you used an example of self reference. Self-reference
>> is always indistinguishable from reference. In that case, "this
>> statement is true" refers to a lost or hidden statement. That is why I
>> said I don't know what could be true about it.
> ...
|
| Show full article (4.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
