Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 31, 2022 8:10:11 GMT
Let's take few examples first:
1. Logic:
"I am a son"
"I have a son"
Therefore,
a) "I am a son & I have a son"
b) "My mother has a grandson"
c) "At least two people exist"
d) "The Sun shines everyday"
2. Math:
"1+1"
Therefore,
a) "2"
b) "1+1=2"
c) "1"
d) "3"
In the first example different inferences are possible. To make (a) we need to have got the rule of introduction of the conjuncion previously. For doing (b) is a daily example and it doesn't seem to be unclear. The third is less clear, and the existence comes from two previous might be correct under some specific conditions. The next (d) is a possible inference, but it works only in some specific semantics versions of logic.
Make a note, none of such arguments (a)-(d) are necessary. Each one either is conventional, or bases on some common sense, whch isn't a plus for logic.
The second example of math gives us a correct inference (a), and a synonymous (b), saying the same by the different notation. None of the last two (c&d) are correct.
To show that math is necessity, pay attention that none logical phrases (and non logical also) cannot avoid quantfication. One always has a chance to calculate any logical statements, like:
"I have a son" = "I+s" = 2
"The Sun shines everyday" = "S*D" = d(.65*x)
The coding system may be different. We can do it in whatever whay we want to do it. Let's imagine such a way of doing it:
I Son Sun days
I _ + _ _
Son + _ _ _
Sun _ _ _ +
days _ _ + _
But the codint system is empty without doing any calculations. What's the point of any codes? If you replace "c" instead of "o" you get nothing, until there's a math function that works. If, for instance, using "c" is ".75", while "o" is ".99" (depending of a length of a line), then you can use it to cover a certain sufrace with those symbols quicklier, than in case of "c".
Math is rooted in the necessity, because the most general relation between anything is a number relation. If 2<3, then this law is a necessary one for any possible world. And it is absolutely doesn't matter whether or not "2" is written as "2", not as "II", or "3" is written as "C", or not.
The same about any word. What is a word - is just a number. If we chosed "being" as the first word, and "ending" as the final, that "being" would be, let's say, =n-1, and the "ending" would be =n. And it doesn't really matter either we use "n", or "x". "n" can be noted as 14 and x as 24. The final can be described numerically the number we want to. Moreover, if someone would object us saying that "n" doesn't really match to "the end" or "the final", and while we've chosed 24 the real end will be "42". But who cares? If we could reach 42 - is this our primal finish line. And 42 would be that necessary limit we had gotten for a moment, and that necessary limited our real positions.
1. Logic:
"I am a son"
"I have a son"
Therefore,
a) "I am a son & I have a son"
b) "My mother has a grandson"
c) "At least two people exist"
d) "The Sun shines everyday"
2. Math:
"1+1"
Therefore,
a) "2"
b) "1+1=2"
c) "1"
d) "3"
In the first example different inferences are possible. To make (a) we need to have got the rule of introduction of the conjuncion previously. For doing (b) is a daily example and it doesn't seem to be unclear. The third is less clear, and the existence comes from two previous might be correct under some specific conditions. The next (d) is a possible inference, but it works only in some specific semantics versions of logic.
Make a note, none of such arguments (a)-(d) are necessary. Each one either is conventional, or bases on some common sense, whch isn't a plus for logic.
The second example of math gives us a correct inference (a), and a synonymous (b), saying the same by the different notation. None of the last two (c&d) are correct.
To show that math is necessity, pay attention that none logical phrases (and non logical also) cannot avoid quantfication. One always has a chance to calculate any logical statements, like:
"I have a son" = "I+s" = 2
"The Sun shines everyday" = "S*D" = d(.65*x)
The coding system may be different. We can do it in whatever whay we want to do it. Let's imagine such a way of doing it:
I Son Sun days
I _ + _ _
Son + _ _ _
Sun _ _ _ +
days _ _ + _
But the codint system is empty without doing any calculations. What's the point of any codes? If you replace "c" instead of "o" you get nothing, until there's a math function that works. If, for instance, using "c" is ".75", while "o" is ".99" (depending of a length of a line), then you can use it to cover a certain sufrace with those symbols quicklier, than in case of "c".
Math is rooted in the necessity, because the most general relation between anything is a number relation. If 2<3, then this law is a necessary one for any possible world. And it is absolutely doesn't matter whether or not "2" is written as "2", not as "II", or "3" is written as "C", or not.
The same about any word. What is a word - is just a number. If we chosed "being" as the first word, and "ending" as the final, that "being" would be, let's say, =n-1, and the "ending" would be =n. And it doesn't really matter either we use "n", or "x". "n" can be noted as 14 and x as 24. The final can be described numerically the number we want to. Moreover, if someone would object us saying that "n" doesn't really match to "the end" or "the final", and while we've chosed 24 the real end will be "42". But who cares? If we could reach 42 - is this our primal finish line. And 42 would be that necessary limit we had gotten for a moment, and that necessary limited our real positions.
