3e49db No.7551
If people have a problem with conditionals with false antecedents and with true consequents always being true, why not just change it according to what is found to be more intuitive? Regarding equivalence with some disjunctions, every explanation I hear seems to make sense prima facie, but I think ultimately they make sense merely because it makes the whole system simple and easy to work with. For instance, (p->q)->(~pVq) is not as intuitively necessarily true as maybe (pVq)->(~p->q). Simply changing how implications behave reflects that some of these disjunctions, while equivalent with the material implication, would indeed cease to be equivalent. So again, why do we stick with the material implication? Is it because in it, they're equivalent to disjunctions and are therefore translatable by something like DeMorgan's Laws and provide for tidy simplifications?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
76acb3 No.7552
Because of application.
That which isn't a part of reality can not operate with in it, nor should it serve a representative of it. Anything that doesn't apply to reality is pure fantasy, nor mater how "intuitive" it is.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50f567 No.7553
>>7552
What are you talking about anon?
>>7551
I don't know, but I don't think these disjunctions are very useful anyways anymore. Perhaps you would be better served by dropping the system entirely?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.