Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies

On 2024-04-30 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/30/2024 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-29 15:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 4/29/2024 10:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-29 14:32:13 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 4/29/2024 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-28 13:24:52 +0000, olcott said:
 

Translated into a syllogism:
 All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B

 Which inference rule of syllogistic logic permits that inference?
 

 (1) That is a correct translation from this POE argument:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Therefore B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
 (2) That as a syllogism it is the non-sequitur error proves
that the POE was the non-sequitur error all along.

 What you call a "syllogism" isn't one as it has none of the forms
of valid syllogism as listed by Aristotle.
 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition

 That page does not tell what a syllogism is. Instead, the page
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
does.
 

 This is the part of the page on syllogism that links to that link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure

THat's right. That section says what the form of a syllogism is.
Your "syllogism" has not that form.
--
Mikko