Talk:William of Soissons
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Improvements
[edit]Thank you for improving this article!
Astreven (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there another proof?
[edit]The question remains if there is another proof. I don't think so.
Suppose a 'statement' follows logically from other statements or agreements.
Suppose an 'agreement' is more or less self evident in a community ( a civilization).
-(P & -P) is an agreement at least in Western Society. It is not a statement that follows from other statements or agreements. It is an agreement itself.
An agreement, like -(P&-P), cannot be proven logically. It works or it works not. See also L. Wittgenstein, Uber Gewissheit, Number 110 and further. Suhrkamp Verlag, 1982.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Astreven (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The appendix has a problem
[edit]Can anyone justify this statement?: "But (P &¬ P) can in this proof only be rejected if E is valid."
"¬(P &¬ P)" is an accepted tautology.
Daniel R. Grayson (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The appendix was added by Astreven (talk). I propose to delete the appendix. Does anyone object?
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Stub-Class mathematics articles
- Low-priority mathematics articles
- Stub-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/18 December 2017
- Accepted AfC submissions