What if Aristotle was just... wrong? His conclusions have been

>>9036944
>His conclusions have been taken as Homeric and have informed the development of math for millennia.
What the fuck are you spouting about. Much of modern philosophy was developed in direct opposition to Aristotle's conclusions. Moreover, Aristotle was not particularly well vested in mathematics, and hardly wrote anything on the subject.

>>9036952
The guy invented Logic

>>9036957
Sure, but Aristotelian logic is not mathematical logic.

>>9036952
>>His conclusions have been taken as Homeric and have informed the development of math for millennia.
>What the fuck are you spouting about. Much of modern philosophy was developed in direct opposition to Aristotle's conclusions. Moreover, Aristotle was not particularly well vested in mathematics, and hardly wrote anything on the subject.

I'm talking about logic.
Mathematics is based on a particular type of logic, and that logic has roots in Aristotlean logic.

>>9036952
mostly I'm just memeing about this thread
>>9031241

>>9036958
This

Take a symbolic logic class or whatever

>>9036958
/thread
literally nothing alike, regardless of root

File: 7449ae7657e166a8ac5108a998d21f0d3fe8724af9401d19de7e5c39196e9aca.jpg (38KB, 288x374px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 288x374px

>>9036944
Wrong about what anon?

Aristotelian syllogistic logic?

The question isn't "is Aristotle wrong", it's "is Aristotelian syllogistic logic a useful tool in this universe" and it demonstrably is and always will be

>>9037263
Aristotelian logic is completely useless.

>>9037326
Are you retarded? Aristotelian syllogisms are the basic of boolean algebra and therefore all modern digital electronics, at the highest most modern level. Before that it was the basis of all logic systems

chrysippus' logic was better

>>9037341
Lol first order logic may contain some Aristotelian syllogism, but it's far from being the subject.

>>9037341
No, there are other methods now used where we obtain the predecessor en passant, and have no need to keep track of the provenance of any bit which is a req of boolean algebra.

Things like booleans are obsolete in modern CS/engineering. They served their purpose throughout the previous century but are no longer needed because they require state to make a judgement.

File: iphones apple look at all that innivation.gif (3MB, 500x263px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x263px

>>9037600
You're a fucking idiot and completely clueless. Pretty much all systems require state. CPUs are big state machines that run on boolean logic.

You're one of those haskell faggots who thinks that because you're obsessed with some obscure low performance language, everyone else is too. Guess what, your operating system runs on C and is stateful as FUCK, nigga

4chan is probably written in php which is implemented in C, or implemented in something that is implemented in C, you cuck

>>9037602
No, they don't require state. I also don't use Haskell.

Your problem is brainletitus. You have blinded yourself by reducing the information you have at hand to a bit, and then trying to recover that information later by remembering the provenance of that bit. This isn't needed in modern computer science.

My operating system is based on a 1980s monolithic kernel so I don't understand what you're talking about, I'm using last centuries technology like most other people. However that doesn't mean state is req, or booleans are still req, because they aren't.

File: digital-design-chap-3-22-638.jpg (43KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 638x479px

>>9037608
You're a fucking idiot pontificating about things you don't understand

Literally every instruction set architecture and therefore every programming language utilizes conditional branching which relies upon boolean conditions, calculations via adders and multiplexers, etc. And these are all the literal physical manifestations of boolean algebra

Maybe you're trying to sound smart or something but you're just completely wrong.

>>9037614
The insults don't help your argument, and it appears you are unable to defend your position without feeling threatened, which is typically how a brainlet reacts like a caveman confronted with a calculator.

>every programming language
oops made a mistake there

Booleans are almost invariably confused with propositions, which express an assertion, or make a claim. They require provenance of state, and cannot be proved, which is why you don't use them when verifying software. Bool cannot satisfy numerous specifications, you cannot test equality of propositions.

I'm not arguing that my CPU is not using branch prediction with last centuries methods, I'm arguing you don't need bools to write a program anymore and haven't since SML was invented, or even the lambda calculus.

>>9037640
Just shut up you idiot, I'm a highly paid and highly skilled software engineer and you're fucking retarded

Functional languages are implemented in C you C-uck

First of all, Aristotle is genuinely useless, and only academic and historical. Let's be absolutely clear on that, first.

Next, though I don't have a dog in the fight and am naive on the points, this guy, to my mind,

>>9037602
>>9037614

appears thus far to be more right than this other later guy

>>9037608
>>9037640

>>9037659
>"""""software""""' engineer

you mean fake engineer

>>9037665
They're both right, in a sense: you need both syntax and semantics to do logic.

Second guy says that syntax is better expressed in a functional paradigm (lambda calculus, and type theory if I'm interpreting >>9037640 correctly) since a program is essentially a sequence of instructions, which are essentially functions, which are essentially "verbs".
In contrast, stateful programming requires you to specify how the states are to be implemented (e.g., if the implementation is a Turing machine you must specify the alphabet set, number of tapes/heads etc., if it's a collection of boxes representing a set-theoretic model you need to specify the underlying axiomatization, if it's a register machine you need to specify the architecture, etc.). Essentially, you must specify the "nouns", which makes your programs non-portable: you can't share what you've written with anyone else unless they're using the same implementation as you, or you write translation software. (By this, I mean that stateful instructions like "move to register 42 and test if the number there is 0, if so copy the number in register 4 to register 6" are generally meaningless unless you know the specs of the machine it's written in.)

First guy says that in reality the implementation (i.e., semantics) ultimately requires a stateful paradigm, since you can't build a computer out of "verbs" the way you can with "nouns". I'm biased towards second guy (as if it wasn't clear from my infodump above) and think first guy's point is trivial, but I don't think it's wrong at all (and second guy doesn't seem to dispute it either).

>>9037614
We had programming languages long before Claude Shannon's thesis on using boolean logic for circuits, and the first program was written 5yrs before Boole's book introducing Boolean Algebra.

>>9036944
Nice bait though

I've always wondered this: what in modern logic, that is, post Principia Mathematica logic, cannot be formulated in Aristotelian syllogisms? What is inadequate about Aristotle's logic as compared to today's logic?

>>9036944
it's well-known (except by you) that Aristotle was wrong about Physics

>>9036965
>I'm just memeing
Lrn2meme fgt pls