Off Topic
|
|
Please help support pocketfives by using our links when choosing to download a new site!
CarbonPoker · Full Tilt · Cake Poker · PokerStars · Ultimate Bet · Players Only · Bodog
|
If anyone can help answer these questions by midnight tonight its 150 dollars to the first one sent in successfully.
There are 9 questions, I can email the test to whomeever is interested. Anyone interested please send an email to vincentnap@aol.com
The test involves the 18 Rules of Inference and 4 Quantifier Rules applied to predicate logic. 
|
|
|
|
|
shoot me an email mbc82584@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
i could own this shit even with my hangover.
fuck the emails, just post them here.
i <3 ess
|
|
|
|
math...
cant post because the questions lose formatting when pasting in teh symbols...
what is your email
|
|
|
|
um, do your own homework?
|
|
|
|
not for me... for my cousin who basically forgot the due date on a take home test i have been a p5 for years... knew some ot help would work
|
|
|
|
You know for $150 you can have sex with 3 meth heads and their sisters?????????
|
|
|
|
i agree 150 could be put to better use.. but i came over for the bbq and hes going nuts asking me to do it....so this the better option...
|
|
|
The traditional logic of Aristotle was useless as a tool for discovery. It compels assent after the fact.
- Sir Francis Bacon
What your cousin is doing is bullshit. Putzing around with form and rules and bs in order to understand logic. What is the point of logic? Spending all kinds of time taking an utterance, playing with it so it fits some kind of form (i.e. square of opposition), thence analyzing the form? Or, is the point of logic analyzing what is actually said?
Bacon knew what he was doing when criticizing Aristotleian Logic. And fuck, almost 400 years after Bacon, we are still making the same mistakes. Tell your cousin to tell the teacher to GTFO and actually teach logic as its supposed to be taught.
|
|
|
 AbnormalQ: | |
The traditional logic of Aristotle was useless as a tool for discovery. It compels assent after the fact.
- Sir Francis Bacon
What your cousin is doing is bullshit. Putzing around with form and rules and bs in order to understand logic. What is the point of logic? Spending all kinds of time taking an utterance, playing with it so it fits some kind of form (i.e. square of opposition), thence analyzing the form? Or, is the point of logic analyzing what is actually said?
Bacon knew what he was doing when criticizing Aristotleian Logic. And fuck, almost 400 years after Bacon, we are still making the same mistakes. Tell your cousin to tell the teacher to GTFO and actually teach logic as its supposed to be taught.
I have zero clue wtf you just said, but I'm sold. I 100 % agree.
|
|
|
| AbnormalQ: | |
The traditional logic of Aristotle was useless as a tool for discovery. It compels assent after the fact.
- Sir Francis Bacon
What your cousin is doing is bullshit. Putzing around with form and rules and bs in order to understand logic. What is the point of logic? Spending all kinds of time taking an utterance, playing with it so it fits some kind of form (i.e. square of opposition), thence analyzing the form? Or, is the point of logic analyzing what is actually said?
Bacon knew what he was doing when criticizing Aristotleian Logic. And fuck, almost 400 years after Bacon, we are still making the same mistakes. Tell your cousin to tell the teacher to GTFO and actually teach logic as its supposed to be taught.
PWNED!
lol i have no clue what yall are talking about and i have absolutely no care to ever know.
|
|
|
| hostile: | |
| AbnormalQ: | |
The traditional logic of Aristotle was useless as a tool for discovery. It compels assent after the fact.
- Sir Francis Bacon
What your cousin is doing is bullshit. Putzing around with form and rules and bs in order to understand logic. What is the point of logic? Spending all kinds of time taking an utterance, playing with it so it fits some kind of form (i.e. square of opposition), thence analyzing the form? Or, is the point of logic analyzing what is actually said?
Bacon knew what he was doing when criticizing Aristotleian Logic. And fuck, almost 400 years after Bacon, we are still making the same mistakes. Tell your cousin to tell the teacher to GTFO and actually teach logic as its supposed to be taught.
I have zero clue wtf you just said, but I'm sold. I 100 % agree.
LOL, what I am saying is that like 99% of logic classes are stupid.
There is this obsession with categorization. You take a sentence, and
use all of these sophisticated rules to figure out how to change it so
that it fits a particular form. And once it fits the form, you can say
all kinds of things about the sentence, because there is this storehouse of
knowledge about the form itself. Which is only quasi-useful. This is exactly the kind of thing done by Irving Copi, who in the 60's or so wrote the most popular logic book, like, ever.
Look, what I am trying to say, is that a lot of the shit like the OP is rather meaningless. Yeah, it's worthwhile to "get the moves." As in, understanding the logical justifications for fucking around with syllogisms, sentences, etc. But, on a certain level, getting caught up in it gets us nowhere.
Go back to Bacon and the "compels assent after the fact." What I am saying is exactly what he's talking about.
Logic sort of gets stagnated when we focus too much on moving ideas around so that they are in some predetermined form. Logically, the moves made are ok, in that the original utterance is logically the same as the end product. But, at the same time, something is lost. And the ability to move the world of logic forward is lost as well b/c we are only trying to change shit to fit prediscovered form, compelling our assent to the change after it has been done.
Fuck these excercises. Wittgenstein FTMFW.
|
|
|
| AbnormalQ: | |
The traditional logic of Aristotle was useless as a tool for discovery. It compels assent after the fact.
- Sir Francis Bacon
What your cousin is doing is bullshit. Putzing around with form and rules and bs in order to understand logic. What is the point of logic? Spending all kinds of time taking an utterance, playing with it so it fits some kind of form (i.e. square of opposition), thence analyzing the form? Or, is the point of logic analyzing what is actually said?
Bacon knew what he was doing when criticizing Aristotleian Logic. And fuck, almost 400 years after Bacon, we are still making the same mistakes. Tell your cousin to tell the teacher to GTFO and actually teach logic as its supposed to be taught.
This.
Now I sound smart.
|
|
|
|
|
Sortable Rankings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|