If a = b, then 1 = 2

[Speakpigeon]

Are you able to explain what would be illogical in the implication:

If a = b, then 1 = 2

Thanks for sharing your expertise.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not many competent logicians, then.
EB

 

[excreationist]

 

[steve_bank]

I'd call it non sequiter. Premis and conclusion not connected logically.

If it is raining cats are dogs.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'd call it non sequiter. Premis and conclusion not connected logically.

If it is raining cats are dogs.

This isn't anything like an explanation.

You are repeating the commonplace answer as if it was any explanation.

EB

 

[James Brown]

Not many competent logicians, then.

I'd call it non sequiter. Premis and conclusion not connected logically.

If it is raining cats are dogs.

This isn't anything like an explanation.

You are repeating the commonplace answer as if it was any explanation.

EB

Gee, I wonder why people are reluctant to answer your logic 'puzzles'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't anything like an explanation.

You are repeating the commonplace answer as if it was any explanation.

EB

Gee, I wonder why people are reluctant to answer your logic 'puzzles'.

The academia created 1 day greenwich time is bastardly queer and dooms future youth and nature to a hell.
Ignorance of 4 day harmonic cubic nature indicts humans as unfit to live on earth.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This isn't anything like an explanation.

You are repeating the commonplace answer as if it was any explanation.

EB

Gee, I wonder why people are reluctant to answer your logic 'puzzles'.

Yeah, well, just try to have a sensible conversation with this guy. I tried, but it just doesn't work. And I am one of the few you did try. Fast and bilby also tried it. Asks bilby how he feels about that. Comes a point where you have to give up. Do it yourself if it works for you.

And, yes, I am not interested in people answering my posts with idiotic comments. It is a waste of my time and I am rather busy.

Everybody else should feel safe.
EB

 

[fast]

Are you able to explain what would be illogical in the implication:

If a = b, then 1 = 2

Thanks for sharing your expertise.
EB

I don’t think faulty and logical is inconsistent.

The logic makes sense. If P, then Q. Revealing that Q is obviously false doesn’t alter the logic.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd call it non sequiter. Premis and conclusion not connected logically.

If it is raining cats are dogs.

This isn't anything like an explanation.

You are repeating the commonplace answer as if it was any explanation.

EB

if a=b then 1=2.
if it is raining then the gas tank is full
fido is a dog therefore the cow jumped over the moon
fido is a dog therefore sasha is a cat

non sequitur. No connection between premise and conclusion. , the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. That is my explanation. I believe non sequitur is just a formal way of saying nonsense.

See the thread Non Sequitur Fallacy

As a logician have you Carol's, also a logician, Jaberwoky?

 

[fast]

I'd call it non sequiter. Premis and conclusion not connected logically.

If it is raining cats are dogs.

This isn't anything like an explanation.

You are repeating the commonplace answer as if it was any explanation.

EB

if a=b then 1=2.
if it is raining then the gas tank is full
fido is a dog therefore the cow jumped over the moon
fido is a dog therefore sasha is a cat

non sequitur. No connection between premise and conclusion. That is my explanation. I believe non sequitur is just a formal way of saying nonsense.

As a logician have you Carol's, also a logician, Jaberwoky?

The conditional is more akin to a premise than it is to an argument. While an argument may be fallacious, the worst a premise might be is false.

P1: if a=b, then 1=2
P2: a=b
Therefore, C: 1=2

That’s logical and a valid argument. In fact, I might go as far as saying that because it’s valid, it’s logical. The error isn’t in form but in falsity. While it might be true that the antecedent is true, the consequent is false. Since the conditional is not error free, i’d submit that the proposition is false, but that says nothing as to the validity of the argument.

 

[steve_bank]

if a=b then 1=2.

.For a valid argument conclusion must follow from premise. 1=2 does not follow from a=b. The argument is nonsense. I'd say it is non sequitur.

fido is a dog therefore sasha is a cat. Both statements may be true but the argument is invalid. Sasha is a cat does not follow from fido is a dog. Non sequitur.

 

[fast]

if a=b then 1=2.

.For a valid argument conclusion must follow from premise. 1=2 does not follow from a=b. The argument is nonsense. I'd say it is non sequitur.

fido is a dog therefore sasha is a cat. Both statements may be true but the argument is invalid. Sasha is a cat does not follow from fido is a dog. Non sequitur.

I don’t see an argument. What I see is a statement.

 

[steve_bank]

I see a conditional argument. If a then b. a is premise and b conclusion, a and be can be true or false. Either way I see the statement as nonsense for reasons stated.

If it is raining then I will carry an umbrella.

 

[fast]

I see a conditional argument. If a then b. a is premise and b conclusion, a and be can be true or false. Either way I see the statement as nonsense for reasons stated.

If it is raining then I will carry an umbrella.

I see something that is a conditional, but what I see is not an argument. It’s a statement, a conditional statement. ‘a’ is not a premise. It’s an antecedent. ‘b’ is not a conclusion; it’s a consequent.

It’s a conditional statement with an antecedent and consequent. It’s not an argument with a premise and conclusion.

Argument, no.
Statement, yes.

 

[steve_bank]

To me it is semantics. I am used to referring to any logical expression including formal and Boolean logic an an argument.

if a then b. logical expression and argument being synonymous.

Every logical argument or expression should reduce to some form of formal logic.

if a then not b.

a logical true or false
b logical true or false

truth table
a b
f t
t f

b = !a Boolean

if it is sunshine I will not take an umbrella.

If a then not b

A true sunny false not sunny
B true umbrella false no umbrella.

If a=b then 1=2. Nonsense, I don’t think you can make a truth table and hence no formal valid expression. That is my test for validity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are you able to explain what would be illogical in the implication:

If a = b, then 1 = 2

Thanks for sharing your expertise.
EB

I don’t think faulty and logical is inconsistent.

A false conclusion is inconsistent with a valid argument and true premises, so yes, they can be.

But true, a false conclusion doesn't imply the argument is not valid.

The logic makes sense. If P, then Q. Revealing that Q is obviously false doesn’t alter the logic.

It doesn't alter the logic but it doesn't make the argument valid either.

Also, there are cases when a false conclusion implies that the argument is not valid.

Anyway, for now, you are not really answering the question.

Or are you saying that if a = b, then 1 = 2?
EB

 

[Gun Nut]

Are you able to explain what would be illogical in the implication:

If a = b, then 1 = 2

Thanks for sharing your expertise.
EB

The failure in logic (what makes it illogical) is that the conclusion (1=2) does not follow the premise (A=B). A is not equal to 1 when B is equal to 2, by definition of the = symbol in the premise. It is in that way that the conclusion does not follow.