[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 293 KB, 727x381, 1656994809300135.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15278583 No.15278583 [Reply] [Original]

Jean-Yves Girard recently has caused controvery for criticizing predicate logic for assuming the existence of "properties of individuals" like [math]P(t)[/math] where [math]P[/math] is a property and [math]t[/math] is an individual.
Traditional predicate logic operates under the assumption that we can make statements about individuals having certain properties, such as "Socrates is mortal" (where "mortal" is a property and "Socrates" is an individual).

Girard argues that we cannot speak of abstract properties like "blue" without relating them to specific objects or situations, such as "the sky is blue." In this sense, he takes a more realistic approach to logic, focusing on the relationships between objects and their properties rather than treating properties as standalone entities.

To address this issue, Girard proposes replacing the idea of individuals with linear propositions (e.g. [math]T, U, V[/math]), which can be thought of as atomic formulas that do not reference any specific objects.
Equality between individuals can then be expressed as linear equivalence between these linear propositions. This approach requires linearity, as Girard demonstrates that without it, we can only have at most two "individuals," which is not sufficient for a general logical framework.

In summary, Jean-Yves Girard criticizes predicate logic for its unrealistic treatment of properties and individuals. He suggests that a more natural approach to logic involves employing linearity, as seen in linear logic, which allows for a better understanding of the relationships between objects and their properties.
How does /sci/ respond?

>> No.15278621
File: 20 KB, 362x357, 16948124126.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15278621

>How does /sci/ respond?
like this

>> No.15278791

>>15278583
You really should not ask /sci/ things like. They are generally not interested in anything out of applying the system of natural science. For them, it's the only reality.

>> No.15278801

>>15278583
sounds like some faggy postmodernist shit
I'd send him to ukraine.

>> No.15278803
File: 86 KB, 600x800, 233263.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15278803

>>15278583
>Girard argues that we cannot speak of abstract properties like "blue" without relating them to specific objects or situations
B-b-b-because we just can't, okay???

>> No.15278813

>>15278801
Girard is not a fucking postmodernist, just a sad alcoholic.

>> No.15278837

>sneed
sneed is an abstract property in some cases. Someone may say sneed in response to a question, in which case it may relate to an object, or they may say sneed for no reason at all, in which case it's meaningless. Therefore if the universe contained nothing physical at all, sneed could still be invoked in its meaningless form. This is known as sneed theory

>> No.15278858

>>15278583
I would need all the rules for this new "logic" to say anything about it. It sounds like he's just musing.

>> No.15278910

>>15278583
>Equality between individuals can then be expressed as linear equivalence between these linear propositions.
yeah that's much more realistic and natural

>> No.15279068

>>15278837
kek

>> No.15279112

>>15278583
This seems like semantics to me. The property 'blue' is already a linear equivalence which is usually implied to be light of a certain wavelength. Most properties are already defined this way, so what non-trivial properties does his reformulated address?

>> No.15279117

>>15279112
>The property 'blue' is already a linear equivalence which is usually implied to be light of a certain wavelength
Ok, retard.

>> No.15279133

>>15278583
Linear logic is retarded, can anyone justify why it's usefeul?

>> No.15279137

>>15279112
Well, that really isn't the real problem here.
>>15278583
There are other higher order logic systems for a reason. That immediately makes me think he's a total moron.

>> No.15279272
File: 27 KB, 775x387, 1678987367453.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15279272

>philosogibberish

>> No.15279320

>>15278803
>b-but we can because... we just can't!!!

>> No.15279327
File: 22 KB, 800x600, science_.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15279327

>>15279272
Fixed

>> No.15279335

>>15278583
>Girard argues that we cannot speak of abstract properties like "blue" without relating them to specific objects or situations, such as "the sky is blue."
What's his argument for this?

>> No.15279666

awww, did the monke think his scratchings were modeling reality?

>> No.15282098

There is definitely something more fundamental than predicate logic. Natural language itself. I think natural language as used in logic and maths should itself be formalized.

>> No.15282548

>>15278583
>Girard argues that we cannot speak of abstract properties like "blue" without relating them to specific objects or situations, such as "the sky is blue." In this sense, he takes a more realistic approach to logic, focusing on the relationships between objects and their properties rather than treating properties as standalone entities.
Sounds pretty similar to Deleuze's concept of difference

>> No.15282572

>>15279327
the top label clearly says science not soience. you don't get to pretend the former is the latter when it suits your faggoty needs

>> No.15282577

>>15282572
he is still right since the question of the validity of the scientific method is unfalsifiable, and it is taboo to question the scientific method.
(except when you do maths even though maths doesn't follow the scientific method and axiomatic systems are unfalsifiable)

>> No.15282582
File: 59 KB, 300x250, what-would-the-smartest.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15282582

>>15278583
logic is a spiritual matter, namaste

>> No.15282588

>>15282582
he would be fapping to hentai to relieve stress

>> No.15282999

>>15279272
Science has fucked up the world just as much as it's helped it
Only philosophy can truly save us

>> No.15283381

>>15279272
This is formal logic which is a part of math you fucking idiot

>> No.15283391
File: 41 KB, 305x457, 1679149722531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15283391

>>15283381
OP is about a philosotard who is too dumb to understand formal logic, abuses it by misapplying it outside of its mathematical scope and then getting butthurt over failing to comprehend why it doesn't work anymore when you mix it with ambiguous natural language. A clear case of low IQ and exactly the reason why math chads laugh at philosophy brainlets.

>> No.15283395

>>15279320
Not an argument, mental patient. We can and we do all the time. You will not be able to explain how properties are any more or less valid abstractions than anything else.

>> No.15283397
File: 9 KB, 225x225, cringejak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15283397

>>15282572
>NOOO SCIENCE NEEDS A SPECIAL NAME WHEN YOU MAKE FUN OF IT

>> No.15283404

Epik

>> No.15283407

Why are these captchas so difficult?? 4chan looking for the pro humans seems like

>> No.15283422

>>15278583
just reductionism applied to logic.
Not any surprise

>> No.15283423

>>15283391
The guy in the OP has a PhD in mathematics and logic you idiot. He's a mathematician and smarter than you.

>> No.15283432

>>15283423
Maybe you meant "mathematical logic"?

Idiot

>> No.15283439

>>15283423
>The guy in the OP has a PhD in mathematics
So do I.
>and smarter than you.
Obviously not or he would have realized the futility of his stupid language games. Something that was already trivial to me in elementary school.

>> No.15283553

>>15283391
This retard kek

>> No.15283558

>>15283432
I'm smarter than you
>>15283439
I'm smarter than you as well
Stop being angry when smarter people than you tell you things

>> No.15283570

>>15278583
Silly.
All individuals are members of groups. The shorthand invocation of properties is convenient for us because it relates to subjective experience.
This retard is literally screeching that we can't call it the sky because we haven't defined where the sky stops and the dome begins.

>> No.15283618

>>15283395
>We can
prove it

>> No.15283627
File: 128 KB, 633x316, 1660105287220739.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15283627

>>15282582
>muh spirits

>> No.15283630

>>15278910
>no argument

>> No.15283639

>>15283422
You say that while being reductionist yourself. What a joke.

>> No.15283666
File: 61 KB, 600x600, 1672830423127043.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15283666

>>15283570
You'd also call Russel's paradox silly, downplay Zermelo's work, and insist on using Frege's flawed system since it's all shorthand and "abstract" anyway, so contradictions don't matter.
You don't care about making sense or progress. Good thing your schizophrenic ass is not working in research so your meaningless babble will never leave this shithole.

>> No.15283670

>>15278583
>More recently I discovered
Imagine being this deep into your arsehole

>> No.15283673

>>15278621
fpbp

>> No.15283676

>>15283670
That's just what "to discover" means, my illiterate friend.

>> No.15283868

>>15282577
an axiomatic system is an object, not a proposition. Saying an axiomatic system is unfalsifiable is like saying a chair is unfalsifiable

>> No.15285156

>>15283666
Russell's "paradox" is indeed nothing but a retarded language game.

>> No.15286435
File: 90 KB, 255x315, 3f09aa43e558514ce5664d3ba2f7b6bd.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15286435

>Girard proposes replacing the idea of individuals with linear propositions (e.g. T,U,V), which can be thought of as atomic formulas that do not reference any specific objects. Equality between individuals can then be expressed as linear equivalence between these linear propositions.
Can you explain how equality of individuals is expressed with their properties? Does this quantify over more properties? Or are that uniquely specifying properties? I don't see why equality on individuals goes away. And how does linearity help with all of this?