[ 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: 46 KB, 1205x308, logicians.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2062760 No.2062760 [Reply] [Original]

Discuss

>> No.2062764

I chuckled.

>> No.2062770

I found this mildly comical

>> No.2062781

I consider logic to be a subset of maths.

Deal with it, logicians.

>> No.2062788

>>2062781
>i consider a very broad area to be a subset of a more specific area
>thisiswhatmathamticiansactuallybelieve.jpg

>> No.2062795

>>2062788
I agree >>2062781
Just define math and you'll see what we mean.

>> No.2062805

>>2062795

K.

Maths is the study of validity in a formal system.

>> No.2062811

>>2062781
You consider math plural. Your opinion is invalid.

>> No.2062816

>>2062805

No that's logic. Math studies formal systems that involve numerical concepts.

>> No.2062826

>>2062816

Uh, what? You want to rob us of model theory while you're at it?

I don't think you're familiar with mathematics beyond arithmetic.

>> No.2062835

I shat bracks op

>> No.2062854

I was look at a statistic for average IQ per major and it was

Physics
Mathematics
Chemical Engineering (i was confused too)
And then the rest were just other sciences.
With econ having the highest IQ for a social science/humanity kinda thing
Which was followed by Philosophy

The rest were horrible

>> No.2062858

>>2062826
>implying that's not mathematical logic, which just uses tools developed by mathematicians to study the valid inference

>> No.2062861

>>2062826
Mathematics is the study of numerical and geometrical systems, period, whether it is explicitly formalized or not.

>> No.2062864

>>2062858

>Implying mathematical logic is a subfield of logic rather than of mathematics

>> No.2062869
File: 76 KB, 1205x308, 1289884458695.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2062869

amidoinrite?

>> No.2062873

>>2062869
>implying philosophy is more "pure" than any of those

>> No.2062874

>>2062854
Obviously chemical engineers are the smartest engineers.It should have been expected.

>> No.2062880
File: 17 KB, 400x309, hands_of_god_and_adam-400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2062880

>>2062861

>Physics is the study of physical systems, period, whether or not it is built on an empirical basis

>> No.2062884

>>2062864
>Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the study of arguments.[2] Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies.
>Mathematical logic really refers to two distinct areas of research: the first is the application of the techniques of formal logic to mathematics and mathematical reasoning, and the second, in the other direction, the application of mathematical techniques to the representation and analysis of formal logic.[25]

>> No.2062885

To those arguing that logic is a subset of math, logic isn't applied anything, it's just something that is apparently true and seems to arbitrarily exist.

>> No.2062889

>>2062869
current trends in philosophy emphasize that philosophy is self-defeating

philosophy ought to be one of the most cluttered and disorganized of the fields, belonging more closely in the realm of literature

>> No.2062886

>>2062874

Yeah but what makes chemical engineering so intensive than the rest?

>> No.2062893

>>2062884
[1] ^ "possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative", also related to λόγος (logos), "word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle" (Liddell & Scott 1999; Online Etymology Dictionary 2001).
[2] ^ Gensler, Harry (2002). Introduction to Logic. 1 (1st ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9780415226745. http://books.google.com/?id=sAe6GppFPDAC&lpg=PR1&dq=introduction%20to%20logic&pg=PA1#v=o
nepage&q&f=false.
[25]^ Stolyar, Abram A. (1983). Introduction to Elementary Mathematical Logic. Dover Publications. p. 3. ISBN 0-486-64561-4.

>> No.2062900

>>2062885

Uh, no? Logic starts with a list of assumed premises and sees what can be derive from it.

Which goes back to Euclid, rather than Aristotle.

>> No.2062915

>>2062900
No, for example it's simply taken as fact that A = A and A != !A the only basis is the existence of identity itself, which is what you're trying to demonstrate in the first place.

>> No.2062938

>>2062915

You do realise that the concept of equality cannot be characterised in first order logic?

>> No.2062945
File: 101 KB, 425x425, 1287634126676.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2062945

>>2062889
The deconstruction of the system is always already at work within the system itself. Said another way, the medium is the massage. By it's use, it is altered by it's form.

>> No.2062946

>>2062915

Those are the assumed premises that are the foundation of logic. And they are not in the world, so to say identity exists is nonsensical. Identity is a linguistic construct necessary to make sense.

>> No.2062947

>>2062938
You're kidding right? Those are two of the laws of logic, identity and non-contradiction and you can't have either of them without complete tautology, which means you just have to assume it's true.

>> No.2062954

>>2062946
linguistic constructs have to exist to express logic, identity exists independent of our ability to quantify it.

>> No.2062963
File: 31 KB, 280x260, Untitled-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2062963

>>2062893
>>2062900
>>2062915
>>2062938
>>2062945
>>2062946
>>2062947
>>2062954

>> No.2062989

>>2062947

So... you use = to represent biconditionality? First of all, that's bad. Never do that again. Ever.

Second, it's well possible to define a logical system that relaxes these laws. Look up paraconsistency.

>> No.2062999

>>2062954
Correct. Metalanguage M -> L Logic + A Axioms -> For all T theorems in L given A -> F Theory

>> No.2063010

>>2062989
No>>2062989


A = A : A equals A

A != !A : A does not equal not A

>Paraconsistent logics are propositionally weaker than classical logic

>he point is that a paraconsistent logic can never be a propositional extension of classical logic, that is, propositionally validate everything that classical logic does.

>> No.2063029

"WHAT IS LOGIC? IS IT OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE? CAN IT BE DEFINED? WHY AM I NOT IN BED YET? FEELS BAD BEING 15 MAN" - thoughts that cross every visitor of /sci/

>> No.2063073

>>2063029
What is love?

>> No.2063074

>>2063010

Law of identity:
<span class="math">A[/spoiler] if and only <span class="math">A[/spoiler], ie
<span class="math">A\leftrightarrow A[/spoiler], ie
<span class="math">A\equiv A[/spoiler].

it is NOT
A equals to A, ie
<span class="math">A=A[/spoiler]

Law of Non-Contradiction:
Not A and not A, ie
<span class="math">\neg(A\wedge\neg A)[/spoiler]

it is NOT
A is not equal to not A
<span class="math">A\neq\neg A[/spoiler]


And how is the rest relevant? Of course if you take different premises you could end up with a different system. That's kind of the point.

>> No.2063143

Philosophy seems like it would be just behind the hard sciences and maths and ahead of psych and the likes.

>> No.2063148

>>2063074
Law of Non-Contradiction is just another way of stating the law of the excluded middle, correct?

What do you think about the mathematicians and/or logicians who don't believe in this law?

>> No.2063157

>>2063074
A = MAGNETS

>> No.2063161

>>2063148
I say a pox on their house

>> No.2063187

>>2063148

Nah, excluded middle is the third of Aristotle's laws of thought:

A or not A
<span class="math">A\vee\neg A[/spoiler]

And since Gödel we've known that it does not hold in most formal systems of interest to mathematicians, but it remains valid in first order logic amongst others.

>> No.2063194

i think its magnets