[lit-ideas] Re: "p & p"

 
 
Donal McEvoy writes:
 
>had thought maybe it was an interesting question in philosophical  logic
>that was being broached re is it redundant or tautological or  something to
>propose 'X & X'. I should have known by the fact the  fella from Argentina 
had
>posted nothing. 
 
Previously, I shown that 'p -> p & p' _is_ a  tautology.
 
What's even more disconcering is that 'p <-> p & p' also is.  That is, for 
formal logic, 'p' and 'p & p' are _logically equivalent_.  Wonder what 
Wittgenstein or his local defender, R. Henninge, may say about  that!
 
       p <-> p  &   p
       1   1  1    1   1
       0   1   0   0   0

 
Cheers,
 
JL
 
 
 


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: