3 ms·

As I said elsewhere (here for others), I'm not going to play this game of willful misinterpretation. Your very words do not hold up to the same bar your are a

As I said elsewhere (here for others), I'm not going to play this game of *willful misinterpretation.* Your very words do not hold up to the same bar your are attempting to hold mine to. I know you are upset you got caught in a lie, but fuck around and find out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Domain experts can recognize other domain experts pretty easily > No, my counter claim is simply that because "B != A" therefore "A != B" We all know that this is not always true. It may be true in certain cases, in certain fields (pun intended), but you know that this is such a basic logical fallacy that it is taught to children. Here's a counterexample so we can lay this to rest. Let "A" be "a square" Let "B" be "a rectangle" B != A -> "A rectangle is not a square" (True) A != B -> "A square is not a rectangle" (False) Stop cosplaying, stop trolling, stop acting in bad faith. Did you even look at my name? There's 2 people that should come to mind. Certainly any logician would notice.

seadan83 2y ago
The equality relationship is symmetric, "For every a and b, if a = b, then b = a" [1]. This holds for the negation as well. Or, "Properties of Equality... The [equality] relation must also be symmetric. If two terms refer to the same thing, it does not matter which one we write first in an equation. ∀x.∀y.(x=y ⇒ y=x)" [2] The 'is' relationship in logic is understood to be equality. The 'is a' relationship in logic is subset. Colloquially, the word "is" can be either one though. I notice in your counter example you swapped the "is" relationship with "is a". Keeping the "is" relationship: "A rectangle is not square" (true generally, but false for specific cases for rectangles). That is really the distinction, the sometimes true vs always true. Let's stick to the precise definition of "is" to mean a logical equality from here on please, and be precise when we use "is" vs "is a" and never infer "is" to actually mean "is a". So, with "Math is a language" vs "Math is language". Which do you mean? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics) [2] http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/extras/equality.html http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/extras/equality.html

As I said elsewhere (here for others), I'm not going to play this game of *willful misinterpretation.* Your very words do not hold up to the same bar your are a

seadan83 2y ago

The equality relationship is symmetric, "For every a and b, if a = b, then b = a" [1]. This holds for the negation as well. Or, "Properties of Equality... The [equality] relation must also be symmetric. If two terms refer to the same thing, it does not matter which one we write first in an equation. ∀x.∀y.(x=y ⇒ y=x)" [2] The 'is' relationship in logic is understood to be equality. The 'is a' relationship in logic is subset. Colloquially, the word "is" can be either one though. I notice in your counter example you swapped the "is" relationship with "is a". Keeping the "is" relationship: "A rectangle is not square" (true generally, but false for specific cases for rectangles). That is really the distinction, the sometimes true vs always true. Let's stick to the precise definition of "is" to mean a logical equality from here on please, and be precise when we use "is" vs "is a" and never infer "is" to actually mean "is a". So, with "Math is a language" vs "Math is language". Which do you mean? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics) [2] http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/extras/equality.html http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/extras/equality.html