[lit-ideas] Re: "p & p"
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:22:33 EDT
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:
