• TheMadFool
    13.8k
    What's your take on:

    A. Math requires logic: Numbers are patterns e.g. 1 is the pattern in the sets {7}, {a}, {dog}, {@}. To discern the pattern one reasons thus:

    1. I'll use a correspondence relationship i.e. I'll match the elements of one set to the elements of the other set.

    2. IF I follow the rule set out in 1 THEN, I can match "7" in the first set to "a" in the second set with nothing left over, so and so forth with the other sets too. LOGIC

    3. Let's label this pattern between the sets as one.

    B. Logic doesn't require math:

    1. All men are mortal

    2. Socrates is a man

    Ergo,

    3. Socrates is mortal

    unless

    1. 100% of men are mortal

    2. Socrates is a man

    Thus,

    3. Socrartes is 100% mortal
    ?
  • Gnomon
    3.5k
    ↪Gnomon
    What's your take on:
    TheMadFool
    You got me there. I was never good at math or logic. As far as I'm concerned, Socrates was a myth. :joke:
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    You got me there. I was never good at math or logic. As far as I'm concerned, Socrates was a myth. :joke:Gnomon

    No problem! Your logic's better than mine by the way.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.