| [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): parsec ( 먼 소 류 ) 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 5일 수요일 오전 09시 48분 54초 제 목(Title): Re: Extension of logic toward belief *** This posting is best viewed on the web browsers *** to RNB: Just to remind you, my thought about logic was that "illogical" is "not logical" and thus "not illogical" is "not not logical" which is equal to "logical"(<a href="http://wsphotofews.excite.com/014/ss/rJ/uC/fQ79744.jpg">fig.1</a>) > you said: > 덕분에 "논리를 적용할 수 없으면 비논리적이지 않다"라는 생전 처음 > 듣는 희귀한 '논리'도 접할 수 있었고요. > > ____ > That's not my opinion but your narrow definition. > > If I cannot apply my logic (to some idea based on belief), my idea can > be illogical and also cannot be illogical. ---> It is NOT my definition. It was inferred from what you said. You said: "No. Not illogical includes logical and something cannot be tested by logic at least for me." which literally means that if something cannot be tested by logic, it is included in the realm of "not illogical".(<a href="http://wsphotofews.excite.com/014/Dh/Yr/5f/fl55253.jpg">fig.2</a>) Then your real thought is that 'not illogical' do not include 'cannot be tested by logic' totally, but only partially(<a href="http://wsphotofews.excite.com/018/JC/9D/I7/f871521.jpg">fig. 3</a>). Am I right about your thought now? <img src="http://wsphotofews.excite.com/014/ss/rJ/uC/fQ79744.jpg"><br> fig. 1. X: set of logical conclusions, X^C: set of illogical conclusions <img src="http://wsphotofews.excite.com/014/Dh/Yr/5f/fl55253.jpg"><br> fig. 2. X: set of logical conclusions, Y: set of illogical conclusions Z: set of conclusions that cannot be tested by logic Y^C includes X and Z <img src="http://wsphotofews.excite.com/018/JC/9D/I7/f871521.jpg"><br> fig. 3. X,Y,Z as described in fig. 2, but Y and Z has common subset ◇ ~~~_ _ ∴ ~|~| | _/__, SEP. 11. 2001 _ ∴∴ _ ~ | | ＼ ` Armorica under a tat ,-| `,-,_| |__ | | | A ______|_|__|_|___|__|| | |__|_|_____________________________________ |