I don't see how it would not be natural to take you as first claiming that my remarks were non-cooperative and abusive. — TonesInDeepFreeze
It's MP alright, but it's a degenerate case. — Srap Tasmaner
And we can leave formal logic alone, as a study in its own right, but not import it wholesale when all we really need is the convenience of schematizing arguments. — Srap Tasmaner
Hence my casual suggestion that we have very little practical use for "If grass is green then grass is green" or "If grass is green then grass is not green." — Srap Tasmaner
How are you getting A as a conclusion? — frank
I didn't change any premises. And I didn't make anything true or false. I merely pointed out that A -> ~A is true in the interpretation in which A is false. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I suspect you don't know what is meant by 'interpretation'. — TonesInDeepFreeze
If the hypothetical in the first premise is false, isn't the first premise trivially true? It doesn't say anything in that case. — frank
If, in an interpretation, the antecedent is false, then, in that interpretation, the conditional is true. — TonesInDeepFreeze
The term 'vacuously true' is used that way. — TonesInDeepFreeze
It's up to you whether you want to say it is trivially true. 'trivially true' is not a formal notion. — TonesInDeepFreeze
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.