Prove [Sythe]'s existence within a state

Easy. I figured it out.

Claim: If Sythe is a real person, Sythe exists within a state.

Proof:
I'm going to use the contrapositive: If Sythe does not exist within a state, he is not a real person.

Suppose Sythe does not exist within a state. Then Sythe cannot live on land, for every piece of land is claimed by some state or other. So Sythe must either live on a boat, in which case, he is subject to maritime law, and is therefore in a state, must be airborne 24/7, lives in space, or must live in the ocean.

Sythe has repeatedly shown that he does not live on a flying object. So therefore, he must live in the ocean.

But no humans can live in the ocean, so Sythe must be an octopus, and is therefore not a real person.

QED

 

sythe lives in the bush.

 

rofl gg

 

sit down

 

Doesn't Sythe live off the grid?

 

Only in Australia

(That does sound like a cool class tho, no banhammer plz sythe)

 

what?
That's the contrapositive...
P = Sythe is a person
Q = Sythe exists within a state.

If P then Q is logically equivalent to If not Q then not P...

Using your example, I said "if rock does not fall, then it is not heavy"

My claim is valid. Denying the antecedent would be claiming 'If not P then not Q', which is only true if condition P is equivalent to condition Q (And P => Q)

This is where I just start making shit up... No humans live in the ocean & X lives in the ocean => X is an octopus?

However, I still don't agree with your counterargument. Sure, land is not the same as a state. But unless you lived over 100 years ago (supposing you live in Australia now), you live on a piece of land controlled by the State of Australia, and hence exist "in" a state.

 

The title 'introductory logic' kind of implies that anyone who takes it lacks logic.

I didnt actually look for the course. -.-

Isnt this the sand box?

 

Fun class. I doubt many people take it outside of the math / computer science world.

 

Big rich told me he lives in the state of NSW, Aus. Prize pls

 

Well, if the rock might not fall because it is supported, your initial implication is also wrong. The contrapositive always has the same truth value as the implication itself. (Link)

Also, I supposed that you did not live within a state. And then 'derived' that you were not a real person. Do you disagree with my original premise that you are a real person? I thought that was a pretty safe thing to assume...

That was the point of the post :S, I knew I had used fallacies. That's why I posted it in the sandbox and not SFA. That's also why I avoided saying that you were controlled by the state.

Also, about the IBM example, I'd tell you that you exist within the companies building, which is private property, so they could remove you from the building if they so wished.

 

I'm confused as to what you're saying. Yes, I assumed P => Q... I still don't see why that's not safe to assume though. You're a person. If I prove that all people exist within a state, then I've proven that you exist within a state.

Whats wrong with an abstract agreement owning a building? It is basically saying that each shareholder owns part of it. If they wish to remove you, they have the right to do so as it is private property. You also signed up by entering their private property... nobody forced you to, it was a conscious choice you made.

 

Reading along. Please elaborate.

 

No, no I think you're seeing my 'proof' wrong. I understand what you're saying.

This is the general form of my proof:
I want to show that P => Q. Showing that is equivalent to showing that Not Q => Not P.

So I start with the general assumption of Not Q. (This is valid to assume, this is my premise). Then I make a chain: Not Q => S => R => ... => Not P,
but in no place in the middle do I use P => Q.

The agreement doesn't own anything. What it represents, though, does.

Ok. That last part is good argument, but I don't understand why you asked us to prove your existence within a state if you could prove that you did not exist within a state.

Also, small print: What does a signature have to do with anything. Why does having your name on a piece of paper signify anything? Why is signing different from just writing my name? And why couldn't someone else just write my name for me?