Bruno, I cheerfuly accept both of your notations about a genius. Everybody
is one, just some boast about it, others are ashamed. I just accept. I feel
what you call classical logic is my 'common sense' (restricted of the ways
how the average person thinks). Linear logic (Sorry, Jean-Yves Girard, never
heard your name) is not my beef: in my expanded totality vue nothing can be
linear. We 'think' in a reductionist way - in models, i.e. in limited
topical cuts from the totality, becuse our mental capabilities disallow more
- I think pretty linearly.
 I just try to attempt a wider way of consideration (I did not say:
successfully). In such the real 'everything' is present, in unlimited
relations into/with all we think of - without us noticing or even knowing
about it. (Some we don't even know about).
We just follow the given axioms (see below) of the in-model content and stay

When Gerolamo Cardano screwed up the term* 'probability* - as the first one
applying a scientific calculability in his De Ludo Aleae he poisined the
minds by the concept of a - mathematically applicable - homogenous
distribution-based probability  (later: *random,*
 the reason why the contemporaries of Boltzman could not understand him
- before Einstein.) Alas, distributions are not homogenous and random does
not exist in our deterministic (ordered) world (only ignorance about the
*Statistical* as well are the 'given' distributional counts within the
chosen model- domain.
*Math (applied)* was seeking the calculable, so it was restricted to the
ordered disorder.
If something is fundamentally impredicative (like the final value of pi) I
am thinking of a 'fundamental' ignorance about the conditions of the
description.(cf: 2-slit phenomenon).

*AXIOMS, however, are products of a reversed logic:*
they are devised in order to make our theories applicable and not vice
My point:
with a different logic, different axioms may be devised and our explanations
of the world may be quite different. E.g." 2+2 is NOT 4". You may call it
'bad' logic, Allowed. What I won't allow is *"illogical" *unless you checked
ALL (possible and impossible) logical systems.

Reading your enlightening remarks (thank you) I see that I don't need those
'signs' to NOT understand, you did not apply them and I did not understand
your explanatory - lettered and numbered - par. (Why are 'idem per idem' *
not* identical, (as A = A & A) when naming 1+1=2 as A, - from 1+1=2, the
format 1+1=2 & 1+1=2 is deducible? (Of course I don't know the meaning of
'deducible'.) You also sneaked in the word 'modal' operator, for which I am
too much of a beginner.

That much said: I ask your patience concerning my ignorance in my
questions/remarks on what I think I sort of understood.  I may be 'on the
other side'.

Best regards


On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

> On 20 May 2009, at 00:01, John Mikes wrote:
> > As always, thanks, Bruno for taking the time to educate this bum.
> > Starting at the bottom:
> > "To ask a logician the meaning of the signs, (...) is like asking
> > the logician what is logic, and no two logicians can agree on the
> > possible answer to that question."
> > This is why I asked  --  YOUR  -- version.
> > *
> > "Logic is also hard to explain to the layman,..."
> > I had a didactically gifted boss (1951) who said 'if you understand
> > something to a sufficient depth, you can explain it to any avarage
> > educated person'.
> > And here comes my
> > "counter-example" to your A&B parable: condition: I have $100 in my
> > purse.
> > 'A'  means "I take out $55 from my purse" and it is true.
> > 'B' means: I take out $65 from my purse - and this is also true.
> > A&B is untrue (unless we forget about the meaning of & or and . In
> > any language.
> As I said you are a beginner. And you confirm my theory that beginner
> can be  great genius! You have just discovered here the field of
> linear logic. Unfortunately the discovery has already been done by
> Jean-Yves Girard, a french logician. Your money example is often used
> by Jean-Yves Girard himself to motivate Linear logic. Actually my
> other motivation for explaining the combinators, besides to exploit
> the Curry Howard isomorphism, was to have a very finely grained notion
> of deduction so as to provide a simple introduction to linear logic.
> In linear logic the rule of deduction are such that the proposition
> "A" and the proposition "A & A" are not equivalent. Intuitionistic
> logic can be regain by adding a "modal" operator, noted "!" and read
> "of course A", and !A means A & A & A & ...
> Now, a presentation of a logic can be long and boring, and I will not
> do it now because it is a bit out of topic. After all I was trying to
> explain to Abram why we try to avoid logic as much as possible in this
> list. But yes, in classical logic you can use the rule which says that
> if you have prove A then you can deduce A & A. For example you can
> deduce, from 1+1 = 2, the proposition 1+1=2 & 1+1=2. And indeed such
> rules are not among the rule of linear logic. Linear logic is a
> wonderful quickly expanding field with many applications in computer
> science (for quasi obvious reason), but also in knot theory, category
> theory etc.
> The fact that you invoke a "counterexample" shows that you have an
> idea of what (classical) logic is.
> But it is not a counter example, you are just pointing to the fact
> that there are many different logics, and indeed there are many
> different logics. Now, just to reason about those logics, it is nice
> to choose "one" logic, and the most common one is classical logic.
> Logician are just scientist and they give always the precise axiom and
> rule of the logic they are using or talking about. A difficulty comes
> from the fact that we can study a logic with that same logic, and this
> can easily introduce confusion of levels.
> > *
> > "I think you are pointing the finger on the real difficulty of logic
> > for beginners...."
> > How else do I begin than a beginner? to learn signs without meaning,
> > then later on develop the rules to make a meaning? My innate common
> > sense refuses to learn anything without meaning. Rules, or not
> > rules. I am just that kind of a revolutionist.
> I think everybody agree, but in logic the notion of meaning is also
> studied, and so you have to abstract from the intuitive meaning to
> study the mathematical meaning. Again this needs training.
> > Finally, (to begin with)
> > ..."study of the laws of thought, although I would add probability
> > theory to it ...???"
> > I discard probability as a count - consideration  inside a limited
> > (cut) model, 'count'
> > - also callable: statistics, strictly limited to the given model-
> > content of the counting -
> > with a notion (developed in same model) "what, or how many the next
> > simialr items MAY be" - for which there is no anticipation in the
> > stated circumstances. To anticipate a probability one needs a lot of
> > additional knowledge (and its critique) and it is still applicable
> > only within the said limited model-content.
> > Change the boundaries of the model, the content, the statistics and
> > probability will change as well. Even the causality circumstances
> > (so elusive in my views).
> I am afraid you are confirming my other theory according to which
> great genius can tell great stupidities (with all my respect  of
> course <grin>).
> Come on John, there are enough real difficulties in what I try to
> convey that coming back on a critic of the notion of probability is a
> bit far stretched.  Einstein discovered the atoms with the Brownian
> motion by using Boltzmann classical physical statistics. I have heard
> that Boltzman killed himself due to the incomprehension of his
> contemporaries in front of that fundamental idea (judged obvious
> today). But today there is no more conceptual problem with most use of
> statistics 'except when used by politicians!).
> Of course you are right, statistics depends on the "boundaries", but
> that is exactly the reason why we need a theory of probability, to
> avoid dishonest applications, and this has been done by Kolmogorov in
> a convincing way.
> here, I was just following George Boole in defining, in a very general
> way, the laws of thought by LOGIC + PROBABILITY. This is still
> defensible if we accept those words in a large open minded sense.
> I will have opportunities to say more when I will explain a bit more
> of the math, for UDA-step7, and a bit of AUDA,  to Kim.
> Best,
> Bruno
>  >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to