Paul Gowder said:
“We can go even stronger than mathematical truths. How about the following statement?
~(P &~P)
I think it’s safe to say that if anything is true, that statement (the flipping law of non-contradiction) is true.”
Amusingly, this is one of the more controversial tautologies to bring up. This is because constructivist mathematicians reject this statement.
No, they reject P V ~P.
They do not reject ~(P&~P). Only paraconsistent logicians do that.
And paraconsistent logicians are silly.
Paul Gowder said:
“We can go even stronger than mathematical truths. How about the following statement?
~(P &~P)
I think it’s safe to say that if anything is true, that statement (the flipping law of non-contradiction) is true.”
Amusingly, this is one of the more controversial tautologies to bring up. This is because constructivist mathematicians reject this statement.
No, they reject P V ~P.
They do not reject ~(P&~P). Only paraconsistent logicians do that.
And paraconsistent logicians are silly.