Re: ONT 3 laws of logic
I have been advised to change my diagram; you may want to click reload on
it:
http://robustai.net/mentography/3laws.jpg
In KIF, this would read something like :
(=> Identity (and LEM NonContradiction))
which I intertert to mean that the law of the excluded middle, and the law
of non contradiction do not hold *unless* the law of identity holds. The
diagram says more than the KIF above ... maybe somebody can help me add
quantification to the formula.
Seth Russell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
>
> "Mishtu Banerjee, SCIENTIFICALS" <mishtu_banerjee@telus.net> said in
another
> train:
>
> "If you can not distinguish what is being said, you can
> neither agree or disagree, or you can both agree and
> disagree. The law of the excluded middle is violated."
>
> ... that is soooo true. It seems like classical logic puts the three laws
> of logic out there as three independant axioms with no relation between
them
> expressed. Yet there is this relation between them of which you speak.
> Why don't we complete our logical axioms by expressing this relationship
> between the 3 laws? See diagram:
>
> http://robustai.net/mentography/3laws.jpg
>
> Seth Russell