Got the Memo Yet? You Can Indeed Prove a Negative!

[Kapalika]

Not trying to debate... but given the tone this is all worth mentioning:

One of the most basic rules or laws of logic is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Here's one formulation of it: "A proposition cannot be both true and not true at the same time." Nothing is both true and false at the same moment.

Only if you don't hold the position of dialetheism. Simply stating that your position is true doesn't make it so, which is all you have done here.

How can we know for certain that the law of non-contradiction is true? To prove it it would have to use itself.

Or at least that is what this told me:

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/AristotlePNC.pdf

The law of non-contradiction does not describe anything in the real world and is only a property of certain systems of math.

For example classical logic is incompatible with what we know of quantum mechanics and so there is a different set of logic for it: Quantum logic - Wikipedia

If something can be both a particle and a wave at the same time, or be in two places at once, then I don't see how the law of noncontradiction can be true:

If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You? | DiscoverMagazine.com

https://phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html

edit: For anyone wanting to actually debate on this I made a topic in the general debates that's related: contradiction, dialetheism & religion

 

[Sunstone]

Links to these papers?

I've added some links to contemporary articles in the OP.

 

[Thief]

clear as @'mud

 

[Mock Turtle]

Are you twisting my melons, man?"

Also, "Nothing is both true and false at the same moment."

Well, as per The road taken but not taken, I can take that path but I can't take the path with me!

And damn and blast quantum F****** mechanics!

 

[Kapalika]

Are you twisting my melons, man?"

Yes because the assertion relies on holding a specific view on logic; the position isn't monolithic within philosophy (see my post in #21)

 

[Politesse]

If I prove that the butler killed my dinner guest, I have also proved that the gardener did not. Is this confusing to people?

 

[crossfire]

To: To Whomever it May Concern
From: Your Doting Uncle Sunstone
Date: March, 23, 2018
Subject: Have You Gotten "the Memo" Yet On Proving a Negative?


One of the most basic rules or laws of logic is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Here's one formulation of it: "A proposition cannot be both true and not true at the same time." Nothing is both true and false at the same moment.

I haven't seen your memo yet.

signed,
Schrodinger's Cat

 

[Sunstone]

I haven't seen your memo yet.

signed,
Schrodinger's Cat

Have you ever discussed this matter at length with @Meow Mix, by any chance? Just curious what you think of her views on the matter, should you happen to know them.

 

[Kapalika]

I haven't seen your memo yet.

signed,
Schrodinger's Cat

I already brought that up in post #21!

If I prove that the butler killed my dinner guest, I have also proved that the gardener did not. Is this confusing to people?

It isn't true for all phenomena though, see above.

 

[Polymath257]

What? You said any x. And 2! Does =2. I must be missing something. Please explain.

Do we agree that 2!=2?

No. 2=2. The ! in front of the = makes it mean 'not equal'. So it is NOT the case that 2!=2 since, in fact, 2=2.

Oh, wait. Were you thinking I was claiming something about factorials! Sorry if that is the case. I was using ! as negation on the =.

 

[Nous]

If I prove that the butler killed my dinner guest, I have also proved that the gardener did not.

You did? Two or more people cannot be involved in killing your dinner guest?

 

[crossfire]

Have you ever discussed this matter at length with @Meow Mix, by any chance? Just curious what you think of her views on the matter, should you happen to know them.

I have not.

 

[Altfish]

I've added some links to contemporary articles in the OP.

Cheers

 

[Sunstone]

I have not.

CF, if she ever comes back, I strongly suspect you would be fascinated discussing quantum mechanics with her. She's got a very sharp mind, of course, she's taking her degree in physics, and -- perhaps most importantly -- she's interested in the implications physics has for philosophy and religion. I can see you two really hitting if off intellectually.

 

[Curious George]

No. 2=2. The ! in front of the = makes it mean 'not equal'. So it is NOT the case that 2!=2 since, in fact, 2=2.

Oh, wait. Were you thinking I was claiming something about factorials! Sorry if that is the case. I was using ! as negation on the =.

Got it.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. 2=2. The ! in front of the = makes it mean 'not equal'. So it is NOT the case that 2!=2 since, in fact, 2=2.

Oh, wait. Were you thinking I was claiming something about factorials! Sorry if that is the case. I was using ! as negation on the =.

Weird.
Is that a common convention?
I'd use =/= for an inequality.

 

[Curious George]

Weird.
Is that a common convention?
I'd use =/= for an inequality.

Yes

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes

Things must've greatly changed in the world of mathematics since my day.
We never used an exclamation mark do denote inequality.
For one thing, there was the perfectly standard, useful, & unambiguous
equality sign with line thru it.
And we see the confusion caused by its also denoting factorial.

 

[Curious George]

Things must've greatly changed in the world of mathematics since I studied it.
We never used an exclamation mark do denote inequality.
For one thing, there was the perfectly standard, useful, & unambiguous equality
sign with line thru it.
And we see the confusion caused by its also denoting factorial.

It isn't used in math that I am aware. It is used in logic. Though ~ or ¬ would have been understood better. I prefer /= as well. Definitely wasn't prepared to read it as anything but factorial from Poly.

 

[crossfire]

Weird.
Is that a common convention?
I'd use =/= for an inequality.

Here you go: copy and paste: ≠