Thread 16760973

"If Jupiter is a star then 2+2=5"

This statement is true according to mathematicians. And to think people take them seriously. lol

>if false then false
>system says: true!
Kek

>>16760974
Mathematicians are fucking delusional lunatics. This is the shit they come up with and actually expect us to believe them. They'll attach fancy words to it to make it sound """"intellectual"""""
>hurrrrrrrr it's """"""VACUOUSLY TRUE"""""""
More like vacuously joo, amirite?

>>16760973 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubpKo5maLw4

>>16760973 (OP)
If congress give us 1 trillion dollars, we'll achieve AGI
Sam can't build an AGI
But congress won't give him 1 trillion dollars
So Sam can get away from this useless statement.
It makes a good headline but has no real meaning

>>16760973 (OP)
so impossible to comprehend that it somehow manifests itself in a common idiom, "when pigs fly...".

This thread has the full support of THE ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH.

Imagine being filtered by a material conditional (preschool logic).

>>16761295
All these conditional qualifiers make no sense. I don't see how
>if true then true -> true
makes any sense. So if blue is a color (true), then pigs are mammals (true) is somehow a valid conditional statement? Not a fucking chance. This means propagating truth values across conditional statements necessitates P & Q being linked together. A better statement is something like
>if blue = primary color (true), then blue = color (true) is a true conditional statement
Valid. Now let's evaluate the last row.
>if blue = secondary color (false) then red = secondary color (false) should have NO truth value
Things get even weirder with mixed truth valued conditionals
>if blue = primary color (true) then red = secondary color (false) is proper false conditional statement
Valid. However
>if blue = secondary color (false) then red = secondary color (true) is allegedly a true conditional statement
NO! This is a FALSE conditional statement. It's like saying if 2 is odd then the Reimann hypothesis is true. Voila, I just proved the Reimann hypothesis! What an absolute crock of shit.

>>16761301
Material conditionals are truth functional, relevance of the arguments is irrelevant.

>>16761305
>relevance is irrelevant in logic
thank you for admitting your rebut is illogical. i accept your concession.

>>16761301
you are taking it out of context
it was never meant to model real life situations
it is a system useful to Math and CS

>>16761308
>logic doesn't apply to real life
can't make this shit up.

>>16761325
>logic
it's not logic it's "formal logic" and there has been updates called relevance logic which tries to fix your issues
but formal logic is still relevant, it works perfectly in CS for example

>logic doesn't apply to real life
of course it does, but do you think a mere evolved ape could discover the divine logic of the whole universe, when we are completely clueless about everything else?
it's just the best we can do so far

congrats you discovered one of the numerous holes in math, but there are far more simple ones e.g. division by zero or 0! = 1
these are a human issue though not a math issue

>>16761335
except those "simple" holes you've identified are acknowledged as holes by mathematicians and are simply left as undefined or as 0! = 1, heuristically argued for and supported by proofs by acknowledged as arbitrary.

whereas with this allegedly "formal logic", it is treated as absolute and not as a hole or even arbitrary.

>>16761348
It is absolute in CS or in math proofs.
Cause there the relevance is already at 100%.
So your issues don't apply.

But in other places where relevance is not established, there have been updates and it is not treated as absolute.
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/

>>16760973 (OP)
that implication only demonstrates its formally true not materially true you fucking idiot

>>16761376
So what you're saying is: There's multiple truths? What is truth?

>>16761301
>All these conditional qualifiers make no sense
You do understand it though. You must speak in true statements else anything is allowed. f(x) = x is only true along a very specific line; if you allow this statement to be false then the function describes the set of all real numbers for every input, and all functions under this system describe the same thing. It ceases to be a useful system.
"if ... then ..." statements follow very similar logic; in order for the statement to be true, what constraints are placed on the parameters? Same for AND statements, OR, IFF, XOR, etc, just different ways of constraining the inputs.

Western logic is the single gayest system ever. Switch to Buddhist logic. You won't find these same kinds of gay little paradoxes westoids allow into their logic.

Brainlet here. How is this statement true according to mathematicians?

>>16761475
An array of numbers.

>>16763324
you can get from A to B using allowed procedures. Example:
6 < 3 (add +1 on both sides)
7 < 4

>>16763324
just good old vacuous truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ0f4rsbsrQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional#Discrepancies_with_natural_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth

>>16764505
F => T

-1 = 1
(-1)^2 = 1^2

>>16760973 (OP)
That's not math; that's logic retard.

>>16763324
It's true to logicians.*
Let's say I make a statement: "if you raped my dog then I would have raped you."
You didn't rape my dog. And I did not rape you. So the statement is clearly not false.
Law of excluded middle states that statements are all either true or false, therefore the statement I made is true.

Now replace "you raped my dog" with "Jupiter is a star" and "I would have raped you" with "2+2=5." Same ligic applies.