All language is incomplete, so intuitionistic logic treats it as partial construct. "It's not NOT snowing" is no reason to say it's snowing.
-
-
Replying to @ProofOfLogic
Of course, we can safely ADD a rule saying that we suppose X when we know not not X. That's classical logic. It's convenient.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic
Classical logic seems to say "were talking about real things; they're true or false". Intuitionism seems to say "it's linguistic construct".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic
Yet, the distinction made here is very subtle. Intuitionism has no way to say "this thing here is neither true nor false". It's always open.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic
Though, Intuitionism isn't the only or necessarily the best way to accomplish this.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The extent to which we're talking about "the real" vs constructed linguistic relations.
12:32 AM - 11 Jan 2015
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.