Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Jordan DeLong scripsit:

> Sure, but those semantics aren't consistent with the way DeMorgan is
> supposed to work according to CLL. CLL clearly says that
> naku ro broda cu brodo =3D=3D
> su'o broda naku brodo

A strong argument which I must consider further.

> Aristotle has nothing to offer that symbolic logic doesn't offer.

Indeed, *nothing* has anything to offer that symbolic logic doesn't offer,
but symbolic logic is not speakable.

> But OR is given preferential treatment in terms of cmavo assignment.

It could have been otherwise.

> He doesn't have a power set function in his system, but it can be
> created using his abstraction stuff. For set of all subsets of x:
> =E2(a < x)
> ('<' as containment). So it would certainly be a problem for the
> system if the power set of a set is an element (which I am not adept
> enough to determine).

That's Cantor's paradox: the set of all sets must contain its power set
as a member, which is impossible. The whole point of Quine abstraction
is that it's eliminable *without* reifying over sets.

-- 
John Cowan
jcowan@reutershealth.com
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin