This probably will get the award as the most epic fail of yours.
"At least 1 Jew I know is NOT atheist or is NOT not-atheist." = "At least 1 Jew I know is neither atheist nor not-atheist" ???????
Ummmm. You're repeating and ignoring your own failure. Again. I already said it was a tiny error.
Nor = Not-or. I flippy-flopped it and considered Nor= Or-Not. That's all. Just a tiny error.
You made a similar error. You did not distribute the NOT into the statement. As I showed in the previous reply. You asked where you made an error. I showed you. You've changed the subject, probably because you know I'm right.
~(All the Jews I know are atheists and not-atheists) = I know at least 1 Jew that is not atheists and not-atheist.
The NOT needs to be distributed, that would result in NOT atheists OR not-atheist.
The funny thing is that you postulate my lack of English language. While it is in fact obvious that it is yourself who does not understand English semantics. Since it is self evident that the left sentence is completely different from the right sentence.
YOU'RE the one who has repeatedly leaned on lack of english knowledge as a potential source of problems. And you have repeatedly advocated for not thinking and being robotic.
And your method ignores relevance, and evidence. And also makes intentionally false claims and tries to cover up for them. You admitted that the claim you made was like saying 2+2=5.
You cherry picked the one sentence out of the wiki article that agrees with you while ignoring the next sentence, literally the next sentence, that proves you're wrong.
And I've brought beaucoup sources that agree with me, and youve brought intro-videos, and forum posts. You denied needing to read beyond page 12 in the source I brought.
And most important, you cannot find any fault in my proof, which uses classical logic to defeat you. The error is that you never properly defined Jew, and you never properly defined atheist. Once those defintions are included, you are not only wrong in this specific case, but you are wrong in every other proposition, and any other property.
But, you cannot admit openly that you were wrong.
In fact, even a child could seee that. If I knew one Jew who is NOT Atheist, the left sentence would be true, while the right would not. And therefore the two propositions are not equal. And trivially so. In fact, the left is always true, while the left is always false, if I know one Jew.
Well. Yes, I made a tiny error. But no, no one so far has agreed that claiming "All I know" somehow magically equates to "I don't know any". And really, YOU making a claim about "Any child..." "All scholars..." "The entire world...." none of those are true either. They're just exaggerations made by a person who has been proven wrong repeatedly.
At least I have the integrity to admit the small errors ( or the big ones if I make them ), research the mistake and learn. You seem to lack that programming in your brain-places.
Thus, it should be self evident by now, that ALL your conclusions are based on either wrong statements, false derivations, inventing contradictions just to make your case, basic misunderstanding of English, arbitrary and made up assertions about the laws of logic, etc
No. Making a tiny mistake does not invalidate everything I've said. Again, you seem incapable of evaluating relevance.
The mistake of "not-or" with "or-not" is irrelevant. You made a similar mistake.
and can therefore be safely dismissed.
You can dismiss it. Why would I care? No one else seems to care. Your method is nonsensical, worthless, without merit. it's just playing with words, making false claims, lying by omission, making a confession, then deny the confession, deny-deny-deny. Repeat repeat repeat.
You asked for my position in english. Here it is. Good luck finding relevant fault in it and supporting that objection in a way which is credible.
Any positive assertion about the properties of an empty-set is ALWAYS false with one exception, it is empty.
Any negative assertion about the properties of an empty-set is ALWAYS true with one exception, it is not empty.
The concept of a vacuity is negating.
When making a positive assertion about the properties of an empty-set, it must be included in the statement otherwise the empty-set is no longer empty in contradiction to its defintion.
When making a negative assertion about the properties of an empty-set, the vacuity can be omitted because it is redundant.
In, I think, all the soures you have brought the vacuity is included in the positive assertion, though it is tagged onto the end where it is easily over looked. Just as you are overlooking it, or willfully ignoring it.
Your so-called logic ignores evidence, ignores relevance, and has adopted trivialism (everything is true! the empty-set always obtains) when considering a so-called set which cannot under any circumstances obtain anything.
The distinction between postive assertions (ALWAYS FALSE) and negative assertions (ALWAYS TRUE) is in the link below:
Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Permitting a contradiction using a "vacuous-truth" are in the links below:
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org