That’s right, you can’t use reductio or proof by contradiction in paraconsistent reasoning. But because Proof trees are such a good technique, some people advocate using trees for paraconsistent logic. What you do is label each sentence in the tree with a T or an F and try to get a contradiction between them. That’s a contradiction in the meta language, not in the object language. Whether Closing a branch on that basis is acceptable to paraconsistent logicians very much depends on how invested in para consistent logic they are! But often, we reason about a logic using a different, more familiar, logic, e.g. reasoning about intuitionis tic logic or paraconsistent logic in classical logic.
There is, although like with everything else, if you’re trying to learn something, you shouldn’t get software to do it for you! If you’re trying to learn logic to pass an exam, or to improve your reasoning skills, it’s best to do it by hand rather than letting software do the heavy lifting. (And at any rate, software only goes so far with proofs in first order logic, since first order entailment is uncomputable!)
@@AtticPhilosophy just told an information sir your videos are amazing just another lazy guy sir iam sorry . I learner it as far as i can but i dint know first order logic entailement is uncomputable in Turing machine i guess sir thankyou for your wonderful videos .
Thank you for these, I needed the examples.
I recommend using a teleprompter.
I gave it a go, didn’t work well for me.
@@AtticPhilosophy I recommend doing anything that let's you directly look into the camera for the majority of the time.
In a paraconsistent setting, proof by contradiction feels wrong
That’s right, you can’t use reductio or proof by contradiction in paraconsistent reasoning. But because Proof trees are such a good technique, some people advocate using trees for paraconsistent logic. What you do is label each sentence in the tree with a T or an F and try to get a contradiction between them. That’s a contradiction in the meta language, not in the object language. Whether Closing a branch on that basis is acceptable to paraconsistent logicians very much depends on how invested in para consistent logic they are! But often, we reason about a logic using a different, more familiar, logic, e.g. reasoning about intuitionis tic logic or paraconsistent logic in classical logic.
There is a software for this makes life easy
There is, although like with everything else, if you’re trying to learn something, you shouldn’t get software to do it for you! If you’re trying to learn logic to pass an exam, or to improve your reasoning skills, it’s best to do it by hand rather than letting software do the heavy lifting. (And at any rate, software only goes so far with proofs in first order logic, since first order entailment is uncomputable!)
@@AtticPhilosophy just told an information sir your videos are amazing just another lazy guy sir iam sorry . I learner it as far as i can but i dint know first order logic entailement is uncomputable in Turing machine i guess sir thankyou for your wonderful videos .
Thanks!