Here we go!

We discuss all forms of Logics, Propositional, Predicate, Quantitative, Informal reasoning and Dialectic (huh???!), Modal, etc. But also Logicians like GÃ¶del and Smullyan and all the others.

Have fun!

Logic100 usergroup link

ref:Logic100 - How the Usergroup unfolds in interest...

Wildly ordered,

Kurt GÃ¶del, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

Raymond Smullyan, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Smullyan

Alonzo Church, also Wikip.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church

Warren Goldfarb, Wikip.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Goldfarb

Gottlob Frege, Wikip.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege

Alan Turing, Wikip.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Bertrand Russell, Wikip.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

Richard Jeffrey, Wikip.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jeffrey

.

## Future Reference: The Logic 100 usergroup

**Moderator:** Aetixintro

- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
**Posts:**798**Joined:**Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am**Location:**Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe**Has thanked:**115 times**Been thanked:**8 times-
**Contact:**

### Future Reference: The Logic 100 usergroup

Post #1
Last edited by Aetixintro on Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
**Posts:**798**Joined:**Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am**Location:**Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe**Has thanked:**115 times**Been thanked:**8 times-
**Contact:**

### Re: Future Reference: The Logic 100 usergroup

Post #2[Replying to post 1 by Aetixintro]

Just for putting it back here so that Logic 100 isn't so crucial:

Just for putting it back here so that Logic 100 isn't so crucial:

Aetixintro wrote: Now that Logic100 is here "I reiterate a bit":

Description:

This is the group for people who are interested in logics and who want to know more of it! We start with the 1st order logic, move up with Predicate logic, Modal logic and Quantified logic. The first book to read: The Logic Book by M. Bergmann et al. (McGraw-Hill Higher Education, any edition, 3rd, 4th, 5th).

The recommended reading for now:

The Logic Book by M. Bergmann et al., highly recommended to all people here, religious people...

+ others:

W. Goldfarb, Deductive Logic, Hackett, 2003.

R. Jeffrey, Formal Logic, Its Scope and Its Limits, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill (Higher Educ.), 1991.

G. E. Hughes, M. J. Cresswell, A New Introduction to Modal Logic, Routledge, 1996. (Not entirely recommended, but possible choice, watch up for "frame logics".)

----

some GÃ¶del logics, for both background, being a fellow religious person, but also for the Incompleteness notions:

P. Smith, An Introduction to GÃ¶del's Theorems, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007, 4th printing (apart from the editions).

Background of mine, heavier than you think, special circumstances of North Europe:

Connected earlier on 100 points, but not... that they are listening, that the Logician considered, with LPOV from Quine to go...

I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
**Posts:**798**Joined:**Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am**Location:**Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe**Has thanked:**115 times**Been thanked:**8 times-
**Contact:**

### An example of logics interpretation

Post #3I'd like to present an example of logical analysis and interpretation because the arguments can sometimes be reformulated and perhaps made differently too as you like:

Aetixintro wrote: GÃ¶del's ontological proof can be questioned, however I've contributed with a version that makes it stand out as splendid and at the same time being accepted without a question outside the logical soundness objections to a "necessary God".

Here is:

UoD: Everything.

Gx: x is God-like

Ex: x has essential properties.

Ax: x is an essence of A.

Bx: x is a property of B.

Px: property x is positive.

Nx: x is a General property.

Xx: x is Positive existence.

Cx: x is consistent.

The final argument by my interpretation is presented below in 4 parts:

1.

1 â”‚ â–¡Ex â‰¡ â–¡Px â‰¡ â–¡Gx A (A is Assumption)

2 â”‚ â–¡Ex A

3 â”‚ â—ŠPx â‰¡ â–¡Px A

4 â”‚ â—ŠPx A

------------------

5 â”‚ â–¡Px â‰¡ â–¡Gx 1, 2 â‰¡E

6 â”‚ â–¡Px 3, 4 â‰¡E

------------------

7 â”‚ â–¡Gx 5, 6 â‰¡E

...

4.

1 â”‚ â–¡Bx â‰¡ â–¡Gx A (A is Assumption)

2 â”‚ â—ŠAx â‰¡ â–¡Bx â‰¡ (â—ŠAx âŠƒ â–¡Bx) A

3 â”‚ â—ŠAx A

------------------

4 â”‚ â–¡Bx 3, 2 â‰¡E

------------------

5 â”‚ â–¡Gx 4, 1 â‰¡E

Note for the 4th part: Consider (â—ŠAx âŠƒ â–¡Bx) as â€œadded explanationâ€�!

Also, line 2 of the 4th part is Definition 2 from the original argument of GÃ¶del.

Note2: The following lines are taken out for having no use in this interpretation of the argument.

8 â”‚ â–¡Gx âŠƒ â–¡Px A

16â”‚ â–¡Gx âŠƒ â–¡Cx A

17â”‚ â–¡Gx âŠƒ â–¡Ax A.

From:

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: Any property entailed byâ€”i.e., strictly implied byâ€”a positive property is positive

Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del ... ical_proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_of_Discourse - UoD from above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence - "Entailment"/"entails".

Some of the text is from http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/201 ... on-of.html.

So there it is. Enjoy logics!Aetixintro wrote: UoD: Everything.

Gx: x is God-like

Ex: x has essential properties.

Ax: x is an essence of A.

Bx: x is a property of B.

Px: property x is positive.

Nx: x is a General property.

Xx: x is Positive existence.

Cx: x is consistent.

The final argument by my interpretation is presented below in 4 parts:

1.

1 â”‚ â–¡Ex â‰¡ â–¡Px â‰¡ â–¡Gx A (A is Assumption)

2 â”‚ â–¡Ex A

3 â”‚ â—ŠPx â‰¡ â–¡Px A

4 â”‚ â—ŠPx A

------------------

5 â”‚ â–¡Px â‰¡ â–¡Gx 1, 2 â‰¡E

6 â”‚ â–¡Px 3, 4 â‰¡E

------------------

7 â”‚ â–¡Gx 5, 6 â‰¡E

Alt. 1, 1st.

1 â”‚ â–¡Ex â‰¡ â–¡Px â‰¡ â–¡Gx A (A is Assumption)

2 â”‚ â–¡Ex A

3 â”‚ â—ŠPx âŠƒ â–¡Px A

4 â”‚ â—ŠPx A

------------------

5 â”‚ â–¡Px â‰¡ â–¡Gx 1, 2 â‰¡E

6 â”‚ â–¡Px 3, 4 âŠƒE

------------------

7 â”‚ â–¡Gx 5, 6 â‰¡E

Alt. 1, 2nd.

1 â”‚ â–¡Ex â‰¡ â–¡Px â‰¡ â–¡Gx A (A is Assumption)

2 â”‚ (â–¡Px âŠƒ â–¡Nx) âŠƒ â–¡Px A

3 â”‚ â–¡Px âŠƒ â–¡Nx A

4 â”‚ â–¡Ex A

------------------

5 â”‚ â–¡Px 2, 3 âŠƒE

6 â”‚ â–¡Px â‰¡ â–¡Gx 1, 2 â‰¡E

------------------

7 â”‚ â–¡Gx 6, 5 â‰¡E

This alternative, nr. 2, takes care of the former line â€�6 â”‚ (â–¡Px âŠƒ â–¡Nx) âŠƒ â–¡Px Aâ€� and adds overall description by this!

2.

1 â”‚ â–¡Px â‰¡ â–¡Gx A (A is Assumption)

2 â”‚ â–¡Xx âŠƒ â–¡Px A

3 â”‚ â–¡Xx A

------------------

4 â”‚ â–¡Px 2, 3 âŠƒE

------------------

5 â”‚ â–¡Gx 1, 4 â‰¡E

3.

1 â”‚ â—ŠCx â‰¡ â–¡Gx A (A is Assumption)

2 â”‚ â–¡Px âˆ¨ ~â–¡Px A

3 â”‚ â–¡Px âŠƒ â—ŠCx A

------------------

4 â”‚â”‚ â–¡Px A

0 â”‚â”‚-----------------

5 â”‚â”‚ â–¡Px 6 R

6 â”‚â”‚ ~â–¡Px A

0 â”‚â”‚-----------------

7 â”‚â”‚ â–¡Px 6 R

8 â”‚ â–¡Px 4, 6-9 âˆ¨E

9 â”‚ â—ŠCx 8, 3 âŠƒE

------------------

10â”‚ â–¡Gx 9, 1 â‰¡E

4.

1 â”‚ â–¡Bx â‰¡ â–¡Gx A (A is Assumption)

2 â”‚ â—ŠAx â‰¡ â–¡Bx â‰¡ (â—ŠAx âŠƒ â–¡Bx) A

3 â”‚ â—ŠAx A

------------------

4 â”‚ â–¡Bx 3, 2 â‰¡E

------------------

5 â”‚ â–¡Gx 4, 1 â‰¡E

Note for the 4th part: Consider (â—ŠAx âŠƒ â–¡Bx) as â€œadded explanationâ€�!

Also, line 2 of the 4th part is Definition 2 from the original argument of GÃ¶del.

Note2: The following lines are taken out for having no use in this interpretation of the argument.

8 â”‚ â–¡Gx âŠƒ â–¡Px A

16â”‚ â–¡Gx âŠƒ â–¡Cx A

17â”‚ â–¡Gx âŠƒ â–¡Ax A.

I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
**Posts:**798**Joined:**Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am**Location:**Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe**Has thanked:**115 times**Been thanked:**8 times-
**Contact:**

### People in Logics (Philosophy) - J. C. Beall

Post #4People in Logics (Philosophy)

J. C. Beall:

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jc_Beall

World Catalogue, https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2003056998/

Phil People, https://philpeople.org/profiles/jc-beall

I get some input from Daily Nous and thus I've been presented with JC Beall from there.

More will come, surely.

J. C. Beall:

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jc_Beall

World Catalogue, https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2003056998/

Phil People, https://philpeople.org/profiles/jc-beall

I get some input from Daily Nous and thus I've been presented with JC Beall from there.

More will come, surely.

- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
**Posts:**798**Joined:**Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am**Location:**Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe**Has thanked:**115 times**Been thanked:**8 times-
**Contact:**

### The Logicians overall

Post #5A list of Logicians by Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logicians.

Jack Nelson, co-author of The Logic Book:

https://umdearborn.edu/users/jenels.

Nelson rated by the students: https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRa ... id=1241661.

James H. Moor, co-author of The Logic Book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Moor.

By Dartmouth: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~jmoor/.

Merrie Bergmann, co-author of The Logic Book:

Page on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Merrie-Bergmann/ ... ont_book_1.

Faculty page: https://www.smith.edu/faculty/merrie-bergmann.

LinkedIn page: https://www.linkedin.com/in/merrie-bergmann-232a0b28.

Enjoy the information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logicians.

Jack Nelson, co-author of The Logic Book:

https://umdearborn.edu/users/jenels.

Nelson rated by the students: https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRa ... id=1241661.

James H. Moor, co-author of The Logic Book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Moor.

By Dartmouth: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~jmoor/.

Merrie Bergmann, co-author of The Logic Book:

Page on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Merrie-Bergmann/ ... ont_book_1.

Faculty page: https://www.smith.edu/faculty/merrie-bergmann.

LinkedIn page: https://www.linkedin.com/in/merrie-bergmann-232a0b28.

Enjoy the information.

- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
**Posts:**798**Joined:**Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am**Location:**Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe**Has thanked:**115 times**Been thanked:**8 times-
**Contact:**

### Post #6

.

Susan Haack, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Haack.

Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Logic ... 0521293294.

Deviant Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1974. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviant_logic.

General logics resource further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic.

Enjoy!

Susan Haack, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Haack.

Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Logic ... 0521293294.

Deviant Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1974. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviant_logic.

General logics resource further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic.

Enjoy!

- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
**Posts:**798**Joined:**Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am**Location:**Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe**Has thanked:**115 times**Been thanked:**8 times-
**Contact:**

### Presenting Noneism

Post #7.

Noneism, also known as modal Meinongianism, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noneism

By

Alexius Meinong, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong

and more recently,

Graham Priest, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest

Resources (5) on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) as well:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meinong/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-objects/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictional-entities/

https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searc ... ry=Noneism

Cool?

Noneism, also known as modal Meinongianism, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noneism

By

Alexius Meinong, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong

and more recently,

Graham Priest, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest

Resources (5) on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) as well:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meinong/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-objects/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictional-entities/

https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searc ... ry=Noneism

Cool?