Am 27.05.2017 um 06:36 schrieb Nic Evans:
On 05/26/2017 10:24 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
So, "absurdity" is not meant in a formal way (non sequitur) but rather
how the consequences of the application of laws of logic feels like?
No, it _is_ formal, but from logic. "Reductio ad absurdum" (reduction
to the absurd) is the Latin term for proof by contradiction.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
It's also worth noting that no proof via CFJs overrides rules. Given
that many important actions are Secured (which explicitly restricts
the mechanisms that can trigger them), these proofs couldn't grant you
the power to perform them even if we accepted the proof.
I think even without all the reasons already mentioned, why the
principle of explosion is not a thing with CFJs, it still wouldn't be a
thing.
This is because the principle of explosion is a characteristic specific
to classic first order predicate logic and it's extensions.
I don't think the rules specify what kind of logic the game uses, so in
order to get to Explosion you'd have to argue that Agora's logic is
first order predicate logic by default.
If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I know
nothing) then you'd have to somehow reconstruct Agora's logical calculus
from all the rules, CFJs etc. in order to see whether Explosion is
necessary to make it work.
This seems like an almost impossible task to me. Has anyone ever tried
to something like this in a thesis?
Veggiekeks
