(May 29, 2014 at 11:21 am)LogicMaster Wrote:Too big, for me.... you should have gone with imgfit tags(May 25, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Marsellus Wallace Wrote: Dude, Thats like the first lesson in Boolean algebra, first they give you the axioms of the theory of Boolean algebra then they prove the basic stuff like De-morgan's .
With all honesty, your presentation of the proof is really bad and hardly readable .
Yeh, I'm really sorry about that here:
(May 29, 2014 at 11:21 am)LogicMaster Wrote:(May 27, 2014 at 8:41 am)pocaracas Wrote: So... LogicMaster, what is the faulty premise on which you base your logical religiosity?
First I don't have a logical religiosity, I build up my thoughts through mathematics.
It's not that easy to tell what is really a true or false premise, the problem is that we really use logic to deduce true premises from other true premises though we will end up in the beginning with axioms.
The major problem with axioms is that it is hard to tell if a system of axioms is consistent or not, that means if our system is inconsistent then our axioms will make us deduce contradictions.
If you look at the progress in mathematics today, you will see "Open Problems", They are simply hypothesis and conjectures that no one ever found a proof for them from the mathematical system of axioms. Sometimes a genius mathematician simply changes some axioms and could prove the hypothesis, but it's not that easy.
But there are more problems, there are true premises that can't be proved and they are not axioms, by Godel's incompleteness theorems. So that's why we say "Existence" of mathematical facts.
So I wish you got my point.
I got your point: your religiosity (or religious thoughts) is built through [some form of] mathematics.... the axioms of which cannot be proven to be wrong, so you go with them.
(correct me if I was wrong there!)
