Can you proove something without an assumption? Would that be true without any ambiguity...

Can you proove something without an assumption? Would that be true without any ambiguity? Without a possibility that assumption might not be true? Might be a dumb question but i'll give it a try

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Jm2D7ohWos0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles
youtube.com/watch?v=_JMktNW8RiY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Get ready for me to blow your fucking mind.

Assume an idiot to be an empty space.

Inside their mind they have deluded themselves into an imaginary world.

The big reason MMO RPG's exist is because a fantastical concept, incredible as it is to believe is being shared as closely as possible by as many human brains as possible. (Light speed)

However similarly to this the idiots. Who are sharing in this delusion called "Racism" are furthermore induced into believing two or more can both share in this concept, this world if you will, and dominate in it. As such, if you take it to be an empty space and call it X with two sets A + B you can then proceed to find the intersection and use ANYTHING in that space as a unit of measuring how "Racist" one is against the other.

Tl;dr

Only if they share something in common within their mindset of the parent set can they actually compare how "racist" someone actually is.

Which led to the atrocity in *pic related*

Not really, no. You can prove tautologies (like if A then A) which don't rely on assumptions, but those rely on the laws of propositional calculus.

Ultimately even methods of inference are assumptions.

what the hell?

>Can you proove something without an assumption?
yes. you can prove "there exists at least one true statement" without any assumption

Even if you prove it it'll still be an assumption given that you'll be using circular logic to prove it.

>given that you'll be using circular logic to prove it.
How so?

Because processing the fact that it's circular logic is how we derived the term "assumption" in the first place. You have to make an assumption to enter into a circuit of circular reasoning.

>You have to make an assumption to enter into a circuit of circular reasoning.
And why do we have to use circular logic to prove it?

If the clause following "given that" doesn't apply, then feel free to prove it without turning the statement into an assumption within the proof.

>pic

So that's the white version of niggers stabbing each other for who has the most street cred?

>feel free to prove it without turning the statement into an assumption within the proof.
consider the statement:
>"there exists no true statement" is false
this statement is true, so there exists at least one true statement

>this statement is true

prove it

if it was false, then "there exists no true statement" would be true, a contradiction. therefore it's true.

KING CRIMSON HAS NO WEAKNESSES

youtube.com/watch?v=Jm2D7ohWos0

Wtf

you cannot quantify over the statements in your model. that's malformed nonsense and neither true or false

e.g. under LEM
1. statement 2 is false
2. statement 1 is true

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles

>that's malformed nonsense and neither true or false
Then
>["there exists no true statement" is false] is neither true nor false
is a true statement. therefore there exists at least one true statement.

>Can you proove something without an assumption?
You can demonstrate something and describe it ambiguously.
>Light a match in a dark room and say it lets you see.

But then you can't prove it's not random magic, so no.
>You can only see because coincidentally some magic thing happened right as you struck the match and faded away after the match died.

You cant prove things are related, you can only hopefully rely on predictability, and even today we find ourselves relying on incomplete predictions.

Its like reality is some shape, and we are trying to form ourselves around it. Sometimes we're totally wrong, and sometimes we're partially right, but we are never a perfect match

>If I suppose a statement is false and deduce a contradiction, then the statement is true

prove it

"it's neither true or false" is informal speech in the metalanguage. if you try to claim this one's true I'll go into an autistic fit

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

youtube.com/watch?v=_JMktNW8RiY
youtube.com/watch?v=_JMktNW8RiY

>prove it
There's no need.

>"it's neither true or false" is informal speech in the metalanguage.
Prove it.

Also another true statement:
> if you try to claim this one's true I'll go into an autistic fit

HMMMMM. Not sure if I can consider
>"there exists no true statement" is false
to not be an assumption. I'll try assuming something else.
>"there exists no true statement" is true
If it's true then there is no true statement and as such, it's not true, meaning that it's logic is still potentially valid, and we have to equivocate about "not true" necessarily implying "false."

>"there exists no true statement" is a pickle
This seems more accurate than the assumption that it's true or false, so my natural inference is that we're dealing with problems relating to the definition of "true."

Actually, given that we can infer anything about the truth value of the statement, "there exists no true statement," the fact that you had to assume, specifically, that it was false, means you did form an assumption that can only be generated when one has already supposed that "there exists at least one true statement." The assumption is still there, creating the circuit, it's just hidden by the picklity of defining the term "true" via statements like '"there exists no true statement" is false'. With a less circular definition of "true" we might be able to construct a fully assumptionless proof.

>HMMMMM. Not sure if I can consider
>>"there exists no true statement" is false
>to not be an assumption
It's not an assumption, see

So it's an assumption then ?

>So it's an assumption then ?
No, there's just no need to prove it.

You're muddying the proof and making it tedious to show why it's paradoxical/circular. You're still assuming that '["there exists no true statement" is false] is neither true nor false', meaning that you'll only further construct circular logic by appending affirmations that you later claim are true.

>You're still assuming that '["there exists no true statement" is false] is neither true nor false',
How was that used as an assumption?

that's what an assumption is

I'm not saying it's not an assumption you can't reason from, I'm saying it's an assumption because the concept of being able to reason from it is what makes something an assumption. You could try to reason from any other statements and any other assumptions about the truth value of the statements you produce to generate your proof, and it would all be potentially equally valid. You don't prove something by forming one circular proof, you prove it by refuting every other possible set of assumptions, which you have yet to do.

Because, again, you can assume anything about the nature of truth and reason from it. I'm not saying you're not allowed to reason, I'm saying that the particular premise you chose to reason from is only processed in such a manner as to conclude that there is at least one true statement by presupposing something about the nature of "true" as it applies to statements.

>I'm not saying it's not an assumption you can't reason from, I'm saying it's an assumption because the concept of being able to reason from it is what makes something an assumption.
It's only a statement, no assumption on its truth value was made

>by presupposing something about the nature of "true" as it applies to statements.
Then define truth.

>by presupposing something about the nature of "true" as it applies to statements.
What was presupposed about the nature of "true" as it applies to statements?

It's not my proof, I don't get to define "true" as it's processed by the reasoning of the proof.
The assumption was that '["there exists no true statement" is false] is true', when the arguments have shown that there are other conclusions that can be drawn from the epistemic content stored in the statement "there exists no true statement".

That there is at least one true statement. There might not be, we have yet to find a proof that the concept of "true" as it applies to statements is at all useful or quantifiable such that the "at least one" clause can be embedded without becoming circular.

>Can you proove something without an assumption?
Tautologies.

>That there is at least one true statement.
That was proved, not assumed.

Only circularly, though. We can take any sort of opposite premise and it will equally lead, via circular reasoning, to other conclusions. All of them are true within their circular circuits, but qualify only as assumptions when viewed from beyond the confines of the circuit.

you're a colossal fucking retard

>you're a colossal fucking retard
Come back after reading at least one (1) book on logic.

You can't and you haven't proved it.

>Only circularly, though.
Where was the circular reasoning?

>You can't and you haven't proved it.
see

>HURRR YOUR FACEEE HURRRRR
you're a colossal fucking retard

>>HURRR YOUR FACEEE HURRRRR
That looks an awful lot like the essence of your posts.

>Tautologies.
This.

>N-NO YOU NOOO
you're a colossal fucking retard

>you're a colossal fucking retard

Your conclusion had to be assumed for it to be concluded. Throwing out the conclusion, we find that other things can be inferred from your logic, and they are all equally valid and contrary to the notion that there is at least one true statement.

>Your conclusion had to be assumed for it to be concluded.
But it wasn't assumed, it was proved from a distinct statement.

Every logical argument has the form IF A & (A=>B), THEN you can conlude B. 100% you can not escape this.

>"there exists no true statement" is false
>this statement is true,
You just assumed this statement is true. In my notation above this is your A. Your A is an assumption.

you're a colossal fucking retard

>Every logical argument has the form IF A & (A=>B), THEN you can conlude B. 100% you can not escape this.
Then this is an example of a true statement. Therefore there exists at least one statement.

>you're a colossal fucking retard
Therefore there exists at least one true statement.

>You just assumed this statement is true
It wasn't assumed to be true, it was proven, see

Isn't this Godel's incompleteness theorem or something?

you're a colossal fucking retard

If I'm a colossal fucking retard, then there exists at least one true statement (that I am a colossal fucking retard).

no. it's the basic idea that you can't know nothing

>I am a colossal fucking retard
you're a colossal fucking retard

>you're a colossal fucking retard
Thank you for giving an alternate proof that there exists at least one true statement.

"there exists at least one true statement" is irrefutable.

you're a colossal fucking retard

I understand where you're coming from, but you've probably used an intuitive notion of "true" your whole life without putting that notion into a discrete, logical definition. There were hidden assumptions to your proof that weren't stated in the proof itself, meaning that your intuition was the guiding factor in authoring the proof. Some of them came out in the discussion after the fact, but it all traces back to what notion of "true" you wrote the proof with. For as much as you have yet to formally define "true" in the context of "as applies to a statement," we can only conclude that your reasoning was circular and insufficiently specified. You need to produce a definition of "true" that disambiguates your prior reasoning or else rewrite the proof such that your intuitive notion of "true as applied to statements" is clear.

As it stands I cannot accept it as assumptionless because it appears circular.

No man stop. This isn't about the truth value of the statement "there exists at least one true statement," this is about the *reasoning* we use to arrive at that conclusion. Your reasoning is insufficiently stated and circular as far as anyone other than you can tell.

As far as >Every logical argument has the form IF A & (A=>B), THEN you can conlude B. 100% you can not escape this.
as the "one true statement," it's not; there are a million debate tactics that can be construed as "logical argument" and many of them don't come in the excessively formal form that user is talking about.

>No man stop. This isn't about the truth value of the statement "there exists at least one true statement,"
But it is, that's what I claimed to be provable without assumption. Anything else is a strawman.

>As far as
>>Every logical argument has the form IF A & (A=>B), THEN you can conlude B. 100% you can not escape this.
>as the "one true statement," it's not
If it's not true, then my point still stands,

you're a colossal fucking retard

>As it stands I cannot accept it as assumptionless because it appears circular.
It's not circular, the conclusion is not assumed.

Brainlet here, someone explain this post to me.

>For as much as you have yet to formally define "true" in the context of "as applies to a statement," we can only conclude that your reasoning was circular and insufficiently specified. You need to produce a definition of "true" that disambiguates your prior reasoning or else rewrite the proof such that your intuitive notion of "true as applied to statements" is clear.
Irrelevant semantics. Not an argument.

>you're a colossal fucking retard
see

this is the most awful way I've seen an idiot respond to a reasonable post

>this is the most awful way I've seen an idiot respond to a reasonable post
There's nothing "reasonable" about that post.

you've shown everyone, clearly, what the only way to address you is.

you're a colossal fucking retard

Then "the only way to address me is as a colossal fucking retard" is a true statement (otherwise your post is false). Therefore there exists at least one true statement.

What assumptions are required to prove a tautology?

The assumption is hidden/not stated in the proof, but is critical to processing the logic that eventually leads to the conclusion. Something is hidden, and until that hidden assumptions is revealed, through either formal definition of "true" in such a manner as to apply to abstract statements, or through the re-writing of the proof with the hidden assumptions revealed formally, it cannot be taken as anything but circular *at this* point.

>But it is, that's what I claimed to be provable without assumption.
Right, and I'm saying that your proof, as stated, is circular. That doesn't mean it's not true, when the circular conclusion is assumed, it means that it's only true *when* the conclusion is taken, *as an* assumption. That means that, if we assume it is a circular proof, that it is only true by virtue of relying on an assumption. It can be a true statement and still be circular reasoning if you use circular reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. I'm not saying it's false, I'm saying the circularity of it logically implies that it is merely an assumption.

No no no. That is true. But I didnt prove it was true without assumptions, so in the end I didn't prove my statement. And despite you being right, yes that is an example of a true statement, YOU HAVE NOT PROVED IT.

True logical arguments? All of them are reducible to my form.
I suppose in 1st order formal logic you usually have other inference rules but to us humans they really end up looking like Modus Ponens.

>The assumption is hidden/not stated in the proof, but is critical to processing the logic that eventually leads to the conclusion. Something is hidden, and until that hidden assumptions is revealed, through either formal definition of "true" in such a manner as to apply to abstract statements, or through the re-writing of the proof with the hidden assumptions revealed formally, it cannot be taken as anything but circular *at this* point.
You can always claim something is hidden, but without proof that I'm beginning with what I'm trying to end with, the proof cannot be taken as circular.

It's not an argument, no, and it is semantic in nature, but I can assure you it is anything but irrelevant. It's relevance can be expressed as follows:

You are the only person here who understands your full reasoning unless you bother to take the time to state your full reasoning.

>You are the only person here who understands your full reasoning unless you bother to take the time to state your full reasoning.
The full reasoning was stated. Nothing more can be done if others refuse to recognize it.

Oops, I wrote: I was referring to this in btw

>Then this is an example of a true statement. Therefore there exists at least one statement.

I wasying it is an example of a true statement. But neither I nor you proved it.

what a retarded and inflammatory thing to say, again to a very reasonable and kind statement. you don't have a full reasoning, you're a deluded imbecile

>what a retarded and inflammatory thing to say, again to a very reasonable and kind statement. you don't have a full reasoning, you're a deluded imbecile
"You don't have a full reasoning" is an irrelevant argument as it can be claimed of any reasoning.

Next?

not an argument

>not an argument
Another example of a true statement. Therefore there exists at least one true statement.

>Nothing more can be done
Precision.

What can be done is to expand the proof such that the absolute minimal amount of reasoning is hidden. That reasoning, once expanded, exists in a form that makes it readily apparent whether or not any step in the reasoning process relies on a hidden assumption, and the more granular the proof becomes in the expansion of its logic, the easier it will be to determine what character any hidden assumptions take. From this genetic analysis of your reasoning we can reverse engineer either 1. Your definition of "true," even if such definition is a nuanced intuition, or 2. If you have a high probability of understanding why your reasoning is circular, supposing the indicators that it is circular are still present in the expanded (can also be read as "overly tedious") version of the proof.

This is normally done through dialogue, in which both parties achieve excessive clarity on the intended meaning of the terms each party is using. For example, this dialogue could have gone on forever with neither party understanding each other if I hadn't pivoted the conversation to focus on "the *reasoning* we use." Emphasis on reasoning methods over potential (or even proven) truth value was critical to continuing this conversation in a sensible manner.

I have yet to prove that your reasoning was circular.

What assumptions are required to prove a tautology?

>Precision.
>What can be done is to expand the proof such that the absolute minimal amount of reasoning is hidden.
Not valid. Anyone playing devil's advocate can simply claim an argument is never precise enough.

If the truth of an argument depends on the reader then it's a useless notion of truth.

This is the basis of math man
You just have to accept some things
Take proof by induction for example: it basically says that if the thing works for n and it also works for n+1 we can take it to be true
It's not perfect but we have to start somewhere

>This is the basis of math man
Who said anything about math?

And it is the only, definition, truth.

.

I was under the impression this was related to math

>of truth.
Damn.

>I was under the impression this was related to math
Why?

There tends to be math on this board, i should've read the thread lol

>You just have to accept some things
>Take proof by induction for example
There's no reason you have to accept induction.

Well that's true, but if you don't accept it you have to do some other thing to come to logical conclusions
Like you don't have to accept the existence of imaginary numbers but by accepting them suddenly you're able to solve every kind of polynomial which can be handy

No, as you would have to assume that something can be proven in the first place