“Either if I was right so were you, or if you were right, so was I.” Is this true in the cases where we disagreed, or perhaps not ?
Lacking an [object] to be right about: [right about what?], it can be tricky.
There’s many ways to disagree, also.
I think breaking this out into a chart showing all possible combinations would help.
Or, it can be thought of in an arrow way:
a) If I was right
b) If you were right
Unstated Perspective A:
c) If you agree that if I was right
d) If you agree that if you were right
Information about Perspective B.
Can you get information about Perspective B without Perspective B making any statements?
The fundamental flaw I see with this – is that not all nouns *can* be substituted.Grammar is a logic and it is distinct from analytical logic.
My fundamental approach is distinct from yours, so it will take a while for us to come to agreement.I start with a systemic view, from within which analytical logic is a system with axioms and methods.
In short, if I made that into a computer program, it would compile.
But whether or not that computer program is accurate to synthetic truth, requires an act of at least 2nd order logic.
Truths in computer logic are 2nd order logic, created as an answer to Godel in the 1930s.Turing, Church and others approached the problem from different directions and came up with equivalent conclusions.Church’s untyped lambda calulus and Turing’s Proof are not first order logic.
No. Computers use 2nd order logic. Each Statement can be evaluated as first order but your statement would be broken down into parts and not asked as a single statement.While it is running, you can reach a point where all are true, none are true, some are true, depending on the way you write it.
This is why I can type 2+2=5 right now.
It should, yes. But you can process the disjuncts in different ways.
On a computer, you can process both halves simultaneously in a parallel program.
Or you can process them individuals in a cause-effect manner.