dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Yes, that was mistake made in haste, this is what I meant.
"all the Jews you know are Atheists" is TRUE if and only if there is one Jew you know that IS atheist".
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is religion dying?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Yes, that was mistake made in haste, this is what I meant.
"all the Jews you know are Atheists" is TRUE if and only if there is one Jew you know that IS atheist".
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
While I did make a hasty copy-paste error, you continually crop out qualifying information which proves you wrong. This is your theorum in its entirety.
Q = ”I don’t know any Jew”
P = “All the Jews I know are atheists”
~P (negation of P) = “I know at least one Jew who is not an atheist”
C = “I know at least one Jew AND I don’t know any Jew”
Let’s, start:
Q is true (Premise) "I don’t know any Jew”
C is false. It cannot be that I know a Jew, and I know no Jews
P is either true or false (exclusive or) "All the Jews I know are atheists”
P is true if and only if ~P is false
~P is either true or false (exclusive or)
If ~P were true, then C would be true
Therefore ~P is false. Because of 6), 5) and 2)
Therefore P is true. Because of 3), 4) and 7)
P is true if and only if ~P is false
Because the true premise contradicts with the claim. "I don't know any" contradicts "All I know"
Contradictions are FALSE.
If you want to claim that contradictions are true, then, that is extreme optimism, trivialism, and then everything can be considred true.
4 is a direct consequence of 3, as you will notice by writing down a simple truth table. They are basically the same claim. So, if 3 is true, 4 must be true, too.While I did make a hasty copy-paste error, you continually crop out qualifying information which proves you wrong. This is your theorum in its entirety.
Q = ”I don’t know any Jew”
P = “All the Jews I know are atheists”
~P (negation of P) = “I know at least one Jew who is not an atheist”
C = “I know at least one Jew AND I don’t know any Jew”
Let’s, start:
Q is true (Premise) "I don’t know any Jew”
C is false. It cannot be that I know a Jew, and I know no Jews
P is either true or false (exclusive or) "All the Jews I know are atheists”
P is true if and only if ~P is false
~P is either true or false (exclusive or)
If ~P were true, then C would be true
Therefore ~P is false. Because of 6), 5) and 2)
Therefore P is true. Because of 3), 4) and 7)
P is true if and only if ~P is false
"I don't know any" contradicts "All I know"
Contradictions are FALSE.
If you want to claim that contradictions are true, then, that is extreme optimism, trivialism, and then everything can be considred true.
and it is obvious that “all I know” contradicts “I know at least one”. One is the negation of the other. That is exactly what 4 says. That one is true when the other is false, and vice-versa.
you are refuting a step, and you use as argument exactly what the step says
ciao
- viole
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
4 is a direct consequence of 3, as you will notice by writing down a simple truth table. They are basically the same claim. So, if 3 is true, 4 must be true, too.
and it is obvious that “all I know” contradicts “I know at least one”. One is the negation of the other. That is exactly what 4 says. That one is true when the other is false, and vice-versa.
you are refuting a step, and you use as argument exactly what the step says
ciao
- viole
No.... "all I know" does not contradict "I know at least one". That is called gross exaggeration.
"all I know" contradicts "I don't know any". If you know nothing ( true in this context ), that is the opposite of claiming that you actually know something / anything / anyone.
Your method fails, because it produces both true and false conclusions. Since you have agreed that the law of the excluded middle is true. Your method is false. Using the law of the excluded middle, the claim "All the Jews I know are Atheist" produces the true statement "All the Jews I know are Atheist OR NOT". And that's what you should have said. Or perhaps, you should have said "I don't know any Jews." Or even better, in reply to my statement "I know nothing about this." Best yet, don't say anything if you don't know anything.
Anyway, here's your method. It clearly produces both true and false conclusions.
Well, then let’s plug in the text of 4), substituting P and ~P.
P = “All the Jews I know are atheists”
~P (negation of P) = “I know at least one Jew who is not an atheist”
4) All the Jews I know are atheists is true, if and only if it is false that I know at least one Jew who is not an Atheist”.
so, perfectly true. Or do you think it is false?
Don’t you see it? Should not be too difficult.
ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
"All the Jews I know are atheists is FALSE, if it is TRUE that I DO NOT know at least one Jew who is not an Atheist”
Know =/= Don't Know.
Can't you see it?
In your native language is there a distinction between "I know" and "I don't know"?
Yes. LOL
your first point contains exactly 4).
you keep on contesting 4) while using it yourself.
and again, your second point is faulty. Your hasty cut and paste error, you admitted. Again like before. You use the same argument with inverted logic. then it is obvious that the conclusion is true as false at the same time.
correct your cut and paste error, as you should do, and your entire argument collapses. Obviously.
Ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Let me help you.
In english, if you want to be honest, if you don't know any Jews, the proper way to speak would be to say:
"For all I know, all the Jews I know are atheists." This honeslty and correctly communicates your ignorance / lack of certainty.
On the other hand, if you don't want to be honest...
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
"All the Jews you know are Atheists is TRUE if there is at least one Jew that you know. If you don't know any Jews, this is absurd. Therefore it is FALSE." Per the law of the excluded middle.
Please show the error in this logic. Good luck.
In your native language is there a distinction between "I know" and "I don't know"?
yes,
and if it is is FALSE that I DO NOT know at least one Jew who is not an atheist, then it is TRUE that I DO know at least one atheist who is not an atheist. See it?
and, therefore, All the Jews I know are atheists is false if and only if it true that I know at least one atheist who is not an atheist.
exactly my point.
i am not sure what yours is,
you keep on refuting my arguments by actually affirming them.
ciao
- viole
point taken. You changed it. Alas, you worsened it.
in the second point you use the claim that “all the Jews you know are atheists is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know that IS an atheist”.
Which is another ludicrous deduction. Obviously.
again, the right form is the one you used in the first point. So, you must use it in the second too.
Ciao
- viole
Nope. Lol. That is the entire point. And I can show you tons of evidence. Including that article about cells phones that you also managed to get completely confused.
can you show me some evidence that what you say is true? Or at least comparable evidence that I showed to you? I return the “Good Luck” to you.
If not, then you are making up things believing they are true, without doing the necessary homework. I would not even call it a lie, but a sort of self delusion.
you remind me of your ex president. Identical mindset, I am afraid.
ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
yes,
and if it is is FALSE that I DO NOT know at least one Jew who is not an atheist, then it is TRUE that I DO know at least one atheist who is not an atheist. See it?
and, therefore, All the Jews I know are atheists is false if and only if it true that I know at least one atheist who is not an atheist.
exactly my point.
i am not sure what yours is,
you keep on refuting my arguments by actually affirming them.
ciao
- viole
I repeat:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Oh? How? If you know something/some one, that means you MUST ACTUALLY know something/some one.
I did use the proper form. I copy the form from the first, and used it in the second.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Ummm, you need evidence to understand the difference between "I know" and "I don't know"?
In your native language does it distinguish between "I know" and "I don't know"?
If you think "I know" = "I don't know" then I think you have major problems.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Go ahead. Tons. Do you know what that means? You are exaggerating again. Remember according to you, if you have zero evidence, that is the same as saying you have tons of evidence. As long as you know nothing, you can say anything. Again, according to your so-called logic.
You didn’t. They are completely different.
first one uses: all the Jews I know are atheists is TRUE, if and only if it is FALSE that I know at least one Jew that is NOT atheist
second one uses: all the Jews I know are atheists is TRUE, if and only if it is FALSE that I know at least one Jew that is atheist
so, no surprise you come to contradicting conclusions. Not because of me, but because of you using the contradicting versions of the same premise.
does your language make a difference between being X and NOT being X? From your reasoning it seems it does not.
ciao
- viole
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
And again, unless you are blind, it uses two different forms of the proposition of the claim “all the Jews you know are Atheists is TRUE if and only if…..”.
One with “not”, the other without. Among other differences. The second is actually false. While the first is true.
i start thinking you need new glasses. Too.
ciao
- viole
Last edited: