[talanum1 (OP)]

I have devised some axioms to prove "axioms" of Propositional Logic. See attached:



Here is a more up to date version:


Proof of Axioms of Propositional Logic wo name.pdf (403.18 kB - downloaded 19 times)

[Bored chemist]

Is this New Logic Useful?
No.
At best, all you have done is choose a different set of axioms.

[talanum1 (OP)]

My axioms are more basic. It took creativity to devise.

[Bored chemist]

My axioms are more basic. It took creativity to devise.

More basic than "and"?

[talanum1 (OP)]

More basic than "and"?

Yes. The idea of chopped up relations doesn't even arise in ordinary language.

[Bored chemist]

More basic than "and"?

Yes. The idea of chopped up relations doesn't even arise in ordinary language.

Which proves that it is not, actually, more basic.
By the way, would it help if I actually read  your PDF, or would I just spot lots of errors and inconsistencies?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Yes it would help. There is one error in it (I must still consider the consequences of fixing it).

[Bored chemist]

Let me know when you think it's fixed.
Don't waste people's time on stuff you know is faulty- that's just rude.

[talanum1 (OP)]

The last proof is faulty: there is no contradiction.

[Bored chemist]

Let me know when you think it's fixed.
Don't waste people's time on stuff you know is faulty- that's just rude.

[talanum1 (OP)]

It's fixed. See:


Proof of Axioms of Propositional Logic wo name.pdf (425.53 kB - downloaded 33 times)

[talanum1 (OP)]

The last proof is invalid: you can't multiply "Therefore" over "Or": I took it out of the newer version.

[talanum1 (OP)]

I can say my axioms are more basic because "axioms" of Propositional Logic can be proven with them.

[alancalverd]

I have devised some axioms to prove "axioms" of Propositional Logic.

An axiom by definition cannot be proved.

[talanum1 (OP)]

An axiom by definition cannot be proved.

That's why I put it in quotation marks.

[Bored chemist]

An axiom by definition cannot be proved.

That's why I put it in quotation marks.

So... you knew it was wrong, but you said it anyway, and pretended that putting it in quotes made it OK.

How did you come to the conclusion that saying something, which you knew was wrong, was helpful?

Are you hoping to be prime minister?

[talanum1 (OP)]

So... you knew it was wrong, but you said it anyway, and pretended that putting it in quotes made it OK.

How did you come to the conclusion that saying something, which you knew was wrong, was helpful?

Are you hoping to be prime minister?

What are you talking about. They call it "axioms" but I proved it isn't axioms.

[talanum1 (OP)]

It is useful. I derive formulas with it.

Something interesting: when there is more than one Attractor (in the thick of things i.e. when you need to apply an axiom more than once to a line) the axioms only allow approximate formulas to be derived, it's to be expected since the Attractors might interfere with each other.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Comment on Bored chemist's: "you just chose some other axioms": I created a whole new sub-language!

[Bored chemist]

Comment on Bored chemist's: "you just chose some other axioms": I created a whole new sub-language!

You missed the important bit when you quoted me.

At best, all you have done is choose a different set of axioms.