My proof for de morgans law

[LastPoet]

LastPoet; I don't use my holy book in logic, I always avoid including anything in my holy book because atheists hate even the fact that i am a Muslim, anyway we theists don't avoid formal logic, for me at least i mastered LP (Language of propositions) and a lot of subjects in mathematical logic, I sat down days and ours on complicated proofs in symbolic logic, which i mastered all. I don't take logic from a philosophic account, but from a mathematical account, in my opinion formal logic, is a subset of mathematical intuition, everything is mathematics, any proposition can be transformed into numbers using Godel's numbers.

Your so called proof is gibberish, what we would call in normal speech, a 'word salad'. I know many ways of expressing logical statements, but your nomenclature is unknown to me and doesn't even seem coherent.

This has nothing to do with your holy book, although your religious ideas might be giving you an undeserved arrogance.

[LogicMaster]

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:

---

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.

[Marsellus Wallace]

It looks more readable for sure, but this is a very strange way to prove anything, i've never encountered such a way for a proof,and thus I can not say whether it is correct or not .

The simplest way to prove something is the truth table(the last 2 columns), but if you wanna do it the formal way, here is how ...
A longer but more understandable proof

Question to you ,Logicmaster : How many members do you think in this forum that have experience in these mathematical notations and how many of them studied Logic and Boolean algebra ? and if they did study that, how many of them still remember ?

[LogicMaster]

LastPoet; I don't use my holy book in logic, I always avoid including anything in my holy book because atheists hate even the fact that i am a Muslim, anyway we theists don't avoid formal logic, for me at least i mastered LP (Language of propositions) and a lot of subjects in mathematical logic, I sat down days and ours on complicated proofs in symbolic logic, which i mastered all. I don't take logic from a philosophic account, but from a mathematical account, in my opinion formal logic, is a subset of mathematical intuition, everything is mathematics, any proposition can be transformed into numbers using Godel's numbers.

Your so called proof is gibberish, what we would call in normal speech, a 'word salad'. I know many ways of expressing logical statements, but your nomenclature is unknown to me and doesn't even seem coherent.

This has nothing to do with your holy book, although your religious ideas might be giving you an undeserved arrogance.

Wow! that's harsh, be easy on me because i'm new here.

First I don't have religious ideas, If that's because I only wrote "Muslim" in my religious views, It doesn't make any difference if i wrote "Atheist". (And for your information I doubted the existence of god and everything else including the universe) So don't associate anything i say to what I believe. Just read it, if you agree that's your opinion, if not your free to be what you want.

And my nomenclature is very clear, But sometimes I find it hard to write what i really think in English, Maybe that's the problem.

[pocaracas]

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:

---

---

Too big, for me.... you should have gone with imgfit tags

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!)

[LogicMaster]

It looks more readable for sure, but this is a very strange way to prove anything, i've never encountered such a way for a proof,and thus I can not say whether it is correct or not .

The simplest way to prove something is the truth table(the last 2 columns), but if you wanna do it the formal way, here is how ...
A longer but more understandable proof

Question to you ,Logicmaster : How many members do you think in this forum that have experience in these mathematical notations and how many of them studied Logic and Boolean algebra ? and if they did study that, how many of them still remember ?

Yeh, It's sometimes weird, but these types of proofs are called natural deduction proofs, It's how mathematics works, If you start with a true premise, then you deduce another from that, and on and on, until you get what you want to prove. It's simply mathematics and reason in disguise, Here:

Natural Deduction

And look, I can't tell how many people in this forum have experience because you have to be specialized in some subject in mathematics. I mean some universities include these subjects in there programs but not all. But the most common is Boolean algebra as you said, but the problem with Boolean algebra is that it only gives you equivalent forms, it doesn't give you the choice to "Infer" and "Deduce".

And again as you said why not "Truth Tables", the problem with truth tables is that it only can tell you if the statement is true or false, but again not inferences. But i am with you if you want to prove it with "Truth Tables", It's sufficient.

If you liked it and you want to read more here this book can teach you this way of reason:

Mathematical Logic

---

Yeh, I'm really sorry about that here:

---

---

Too big, for me.... you should have gone with imgfit tags

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!)

No you are wrong once again, I know what you are up to, you think that i have some thoughts that "God" is an "axiom", no that is not what i meant. And no "God" is not an "axiom" that can't be proven to be "Wrong" or "False".

Look I only mean that i think in the "Mathematical Way" which is the super set for logic (As i said in the first place). And i will still say it over and over again, my thought aren't "religious".

Simply the way i think, is the way any mathematician thinks, That's All.

[pocaracas]

No you are wrong once again, I know what you are up to, you think that i have some thoughts that "God" is an "axiom", no that is not what i meant. And no "God" is not an "axiom" that can't be proven to be "Wrong" or "False".

Look I only mean that i think in the "Mathematical Way" which is the super set for logic (As i said in the first place). And i will still say it over and over again, my thought aren't "religious".

Simply the way i think, is the way any mathematician thinks, That's All.

I.... seem to think that's what I was saying.... I must be getting too old for this...

And yet, you've come to have religious thoughts, how come?
Or is your claimed religion a mistake on your profile creation?

[Cyberman]

I don't pretend to understand what this is all about, but I think I've spotted your problem:

If you deny it then you will refuse number theory, and then the computer your sitting on.