Defining logic
  • guptanishank
    117
    A statement and it's opposite, obtained by applying the "not" operator, both cannot be true. The not operator is applied to the part of the sentence describing action or attribute.
    Example:
    a) The apple is red. The apple is not red.
    b) Swamy crossed over the fence. Swamy did not cross over the fence.

    I know it's not thorough, but I want to know if it's valid.
    guptanishank Options
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.9k
    ↪guptanishank

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
    Srap Tasmaner Options
  • noAxioms
    1.5k
    Technically, "Not (the apple is red)" or "not (Swamy crossed over the fence)"
    Is there a difference? Probably if there is no apple. The Not (the apple is red) is true, but The apple is not red isn't really true since there is no apple to be not red.
    noAxioms Options
  • Kym
    86
    I think the term "valid" is usually reserved for an argument structure.

    But it's possible I am afflicted by opposing of states pedantry and accuracy.
    Kym Options
  • guptanishank
    117
    Please ignore this. I should first go through formal logic.
    guptanishank Options
  • Owen
    24
    ↪noAxioms

    Not (The apple is red) <-> The apple is not red, is not valid.
    It fails in the case of no apples...as you have noted.

    (Not (The apple is red) <-> The apple is not red) <-> (the apple)exists, is valid.
    Owen Options
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.

Sign In Create Account

Categories